PowerPoint might make you dumb, but understanding why can help keep you from being dumb even when you don’t use PowerPoint.

Edward Tufte is the world’s premier expert on the graphic presentation of information.  In the wider world he’s probably best known for his article, PowerPoint Does Rocket Science–and Better Techniques for Technical Reports, which (1) explained how, in connection with the Columbia space shuttle disaster, a PowerPoint presentation misled NASA decision makers regarding the risks to the shuttle posed by the impact of a piece of foam insulation that broke off of the shuttle’s fuel tank at launch, struck the shuttle’s left wing, and penetrated that wing’s thermal insulation, and (2) made a strong case that it is virtually impossible to convey any complex information using a PowerPoint presentation.

In a 2003 article entitled “PowerPoint Makes You Dumb,”  Clive Thompson, summarizing Tufte’s article, wrote: “When NASA engineers assessed possible wing damage during the mission, they presented the findings in a confusing PowerPoint slide — so crammed with nested bullet points and irregular short forms that it was nearly impossible to untangle. ‘It is easy to understand how a senior manager might read this PowerPoint slide and not realize that it addresses a life-threatening situation,’ the [Columbia Accident Investigation Board] sternly noted.”

Further summarizing Tufte’s article (which is really worth reading in its entirety), Thompson wrote: “[The low resolution of a PowerPoint slide means that it usually contains only about 40 words, or barely eight seconds of reading. PowerPoint also encourages users to rely on bulleted lists, a 'faux analytical'' technique, . . . that dodges the speaker's responsibility to tie his information together. And perhaps worst of all is how PowerPoint renders charts. Charts in newspapers like The Wall Street Journal contain up to 120 elements on average, allowing readers to compare large groupings of data. But, as Tufte found, PowerPoint users typically produce charts with only 12 elements. Ultimately, Tufte concluded, PowerPoint is infused with 'an attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch.'''

Think of the difference between a low resolution photo and a high resolution photo of the same scene -- the viewer of the low resolution photo remains ignorant even of the possible presence of information present in the high resolution photo, much less the precise nature of that information.

Tufte self-publishes his books, not because he wouldn't be able to attract a commercial publisher, but, rather, because by self-publishing he can control entirely the manner in which he presents his material. Since his entire mission is to explain how to effectively present graphic information, that control is crucial to his work.

What does the effective presentation of graphic information have to do with lawyering, which primarily relies on the use of verbal information? Plenty. The principles applicable to the effective presentation of visual information are the same principles applicable to the effective presentation of verbal information. Important information must be highlighted, the conclusions must be supported with detailed, "high resolution," step by step explanations and the telling use of narrative, and anything extraneous to the points being made has to be cut out. You must also be acutely aware of your audience and the precise purposes you are trying to achieve. Moreover, as Ruth Anne Robbins has so effectively demonstrated in her article, "Painting With Print: Incorporating concepts of typographic and layout design into the text of legal writing documents," the visual appearance of even our written work is crucial to its effectiveness. Finally, of course, our culture (including our legal culture) is one that increasingly relies on the visual presentation of information. There is no denying, however, that a well written brief, an effective oral argument, or a successful classroom discussion is like a high resolution photo, while a PowerPoint presentation of of the same information is like a low resolution photo of the same subject.

In short, Tufte is exactly right in PowerPoint does Rocket Science when he concludes: "Serious problems require a serious tool: written reports."

But again, merely using words instead of PowerPoint slides isn't the answer. The words need to be chosen and arranged effectively. My students often make the same mistake the NASA engineers made in their PowerPoint presentation, which did in fact contain statements meant to convey the substantial risk that resulted in the Columbia's disintegration upon its reentry into the earth's atmosphere. The problem was that the crucial information was buried in a place and amidst so much other, misleading information that it was impossible for the audience to notice it.

It reminds me of my students when, in response to feedback they don't like, come to me with their work and argue that they really did include in their writing the important points I've said they've neglected. They even can point me to the words that I can see they really did mean to make those points. But those points are either expressed in language that is too obscure or are put in places in which they do not fit into an effective overall analysis. It's not just student's, of course. All of us have those moments when we believe we have expressed our opinion on a subject effectively, but if that if that opinion is unconnected to the evidence, authority, and reasoning that supports it, if it is buried in words that don't support that opinion, or if in any other way its truth is obscured, it might as well not even be there.

Addendum: here's one example of stupid verbal argument that bases its conclusion on the information it presents but is too "low resolution" to make its conclusion convincing. The Washington Examiner argues that "[g]overnment workers, especially at the federal level, make salaries that are scandalously higher than those paid to private sector workers.” I have to admit I was startled when I saw the editorial’s title: “Want to get rich? Work for feds.” Sorry, but none of the rich people I know of outside of Congress (which doesn’t make you rich, but, due to the cost of running for office, requires you to be rich) are government workers.

So what information does the Examiner base its conclusion on? “As of 2008, the average federal salary was $119,982, compared with $59,909 for the average private sector employee. In other words, the average federal bureaucrat makes twice as much as the average working taxpayer.” The Examiner even has a cool little graph to make the same point visually!

What’s the problem with the argument? It takes no account of the differences in education, training, and ability required to do all those federal jobs and the education, training, and ability required to do the jobs done by “the average private sector employee.” How many government jobs are there that compare to the legion of private sector jobs that pay minimum wage to stock shelves in superstores, flip hamburgers in fast food restaurants, or the like?

I know plenty of government employed lawyers. They really do make more, even much more, than “the average private sector employee.” But they make less, much less, than private sector lawyers whose education, training, and ability are no better than theirs. And their education, training, and ability do happen to be considerably more than those of “the average private sector employee.”  So why do my friends who work for the government do what they do? Because they believe in and love what they’re doing. Some are prosecutors. Some are public defenders. Some work for government regulatory agencies. And they’re great at what they do. They definitely don’t do it for the money.

Does anyone believe that going to work for the government is the way to get rich? God, stupidity is rampant.

Research only begins with information: patience, insight, and imagination are the most important parts of it.

Suffering from one of my occasional bouts with insomnia the other night, I came upon a message on the legal writing professors’ listserv from a professor who was seeking advice from students who were wondering what tricks or tools they might use to find the analogies and legal arguments that they were finding so difficult to discover in the course of their legal research. No doubt the hour contributed to the poor quality of my response. In her poem “4 a.m.,” Wislawa Szymborska writes that “No one feels fine at four a.m.” But the passionate rage I felt at the belief that there are simple tips and tricks to effective research of any sort was not purely the product of the feeling Szymborska describes as “Hollow. Vain./Rock bottom of all the other hours.”

We have a serious misunderstanding these days about what constitutes research.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, research is the

Systematic investigation or inquiry aimed at contributing to knowledge of a theory, topic, etc., by careful consideration, observation, or study of a subject.

Let’s assume that the inquiry is into a legal topic. The first element of research is a “systematic investigation or inquiry.” I suppose location of a database or the use of a particular search algorithm could be considered one sort of a systematic investigation, but to suppose that the notion of systematic investigation is exhausted by the location of sources is nonsensical. I can point students to particular treatises I personally find of great value in certain subjects, and of course legal research is filled with secondary sources and finding tools that fill virtually any style one might find useful in such sources. And we live in the age of databases — there are databases for everything.

But systematic investigation is barely begun, if even begun at all, by merely finding a source or set of sources in which answers might lie. The real art of research lies in the second part of that definition of the term: “careful consideration, observation, or study.”

The answers to difficult legal questions don’t lie around waiting to be found as if they are treasure chests left lying on forest floors. They are constructed and created by elements buried within our universe of databases. Thus, research that is genuine research not only requires Sisyphean patience in combing through the sources, it requires also consideration, observation, and study of what one finds within those sources so that one can, first, identify the elements that matter, and, second, put those important, buried, and isolated elements together in some useful and novel way.

Perhaps more importantly, the identification of the elements that matter cannot be done without simultaneously developing ways of putting those elements together in some useful and novel way. How can you know what matters without knowing what purpose you are putting it to? And how can you decide what purpose you are trying to accomplish if you don’t know what elements you’ll have to use?

In short, research, analysis, and theorizing are all a single activity — finding things, making sure they are the right things, and putting them together in the right ways.

To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that finding the historical sources concerning the U.S. Civil War that James McPherson used in writing his brilliant history of that conflict was virtually all the work that had to be done to produce the book. After all, once one has found the sources, the writing is just a matter of stringing the information in those sources together, right?

Of course not. One must find the sources, of course. But the research is inseparable from the perspicacious mind that finds within those sources the elements that the creative and original mind then can mold into a work that educates, entertains, moves, and even convinces.

There is no such thing as research apart from insight and imagination. And an enormous amount of work.

And so, in perhaps the most coherent part of my e-mail the other night, I wrote:

Research is about drawing connections between ideas and words from wildly disparate sources, connections that can only be found by means of painstakingly patient reading of one source after another, tracing connections between sources that might be as seemingly trivial as the bare citation in one case to a another case in connection with a discussion in the first case that strikes the attentive and imaginative reader as potentially relevant to the legal issue he or she is researching. Obviously, tracing such connections (and the myriad of similarly subtle connections effective researchers exploit) requires an enormous amount of concentration, and enormous amount of patience with the continual following up of leads that go nowhere, an enormous amount of imagination to spot connections that courts don’t make explicit (and often don’t even recognize the true significance of), and an abandonment of the idea that engaging in research in this manner is to neglect (in some Luddite fashion) “tools” that can do the job so much more quickly and effectively.

Research is painstaking work that requires enormous imagination and is inextricably intertwined with and develops simultaneously with the development of the legal analysis the research is intended to support. (Which is one reason I go ballistic anytime someone suggests librarians rather than legal writing professors should be teaching research to first year law students, as if legal research is simply a matter of knowing sources and databases and how to develop effective word searches rather than being part and parcel of the writing and analysis.)

I’ve always told my students that law is as requires as much creativity and originality as any human endeavor. I mean it.

One last point: I don’t think Google is making us stupid. Yes, there is more information available to us than ever before. But, again, we can’t confuse information with research. Research is inquiry that contributes to knowledge. Information may be a sine qua non of research, but without attention, insight, and imagination, it isn’t research at all.