Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[Snowman]

It's often difficult for people to think outside of widely accepted narratives. The saying "perception is reality" holds true throughout so many different aspects of life. The illiteracy narrative of Joe Jackson could very well be one such narrative that, at its core, is almost universally misunderstood. That's not to say I'm suggesting he could read and write just fine, but rather that it's very plausible that he could have been illiterate but knew how to write letters and numbers, knew how to do simple arithmetic, and at some point, learned how to spell common names (as in his purported notebook) all while still being technically illiterate as he could not read or write a book. I don't know the history and provenance of the illiteracy story or the extent of the abilities/inabilities he is attributed to have had. But I am someone who regularly views these sorts of narratives through a very different lens than most people. I view them probabilistically and am nearly incapable of accepting them whole cloth. In fact, I see the entire world this way. I see nearly everything probabilistically. Perhaps it's because I am mildly autistic or perhaps it's just because I'm a mathematician at heart, I don't know. But I do know that in general, I often discount what others accept at fact. That's not to say that I don't believe he was illiterate. I'm sure there are very good reasons to believe this. But I discount the probabilities of the various assumptions that can be made based on that fact. Someone above said something to the tune of "that notebook couldn't possibly be his handwriting because Jackson was illiterate". That's an example of a conclusion that someone like me is incapable of making. I think that once a narrative gets formed and begins to perpetuate, particularly one that is 100+ years old, it can become nearly impossible to correct it.

This thread reminds me of the Luka Doncic signature drama. I can't tell you how many times I've encountered the narrative that "his mom signs his cards for him" because there are clear differences in some of his signatures. Some of his autos clearly say "Lulu" in swooping cursive letters that, admittedly, do appear to have a bit of a feminine looking flow to them, while other signatures of his look much more choppy and masculine. The theory is that he signs the masculine ones and had his mom (or some say girlfriend) sign the loopy ones. This is a widespread belief in the modern side of the hobby. You can find YouTube videos and dedicated threads to it on other forums. For many, it's a simple fact: "Luka's mom signs his cards". However, there are mutliple examples of people getting things signed by Luka in person, live on video, where he signs with the exact loopy, feminine-looking version of his signature, yet somehow, this narrative is still extremely difficult to combat. Imagine if we didn't have modern technology and we weren't able to witness him signing both forms of his signature right there before our very eyes. Imagine he was a player from the 1910s and all we had were two versions of his signatures to look at and the tales that got passed down from one generation to the next. I have no doubt that the accepted modern view would be that his mom signed the loopy ones and that only the choppy ones are authentic. Yet, this wouldn't be true. It often takes someone who discounts narratives at face value to see through the fog. That doesn't mean we should completely disregard narratives, but rather that it's beneficial to say, "perhaps that is what happened", or even "most likely, that is what happened", or "I'm sure some version of that is true". But it is a heavy handicap to discovering truth if one approaches these sorts of stories with the viewpoint of "we know X, therefore Y". If you don't question the axioms upon which X stands, then you will often be misled.

[...here come the arrows twisting my words into something ridiculous like me proposing that Jackson wasn't actually illiterate. Again, that's not what I'm saying, so if that's how this post comes across to you, please read it again before putting words in my mouth that I'm just going to have to spit back out...]

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It's often difficult for people to think outside of widely accepted narratives. The saying "perception is reality" holds true throughout so many different aspects of life. The illiteracy narrative of Joe Jackson could very well be one such narrative that, at its core, is almost universally misunderstood. That's not to say I'm suggesting he could read and write just fine, but rather that it's very plausible that he could have been illiterate but knew how to write letters and numbers, knew how to do simple arithmetic, and at some point, learned how to spell common names (as in his purported notebook) all while still being technically illiterate as he could not read or write a book. I don't know the history and provenance of the illiteracy story or the extent of the abilities/inabilities he is attributed to have had. But I am someone who regularly views these sorts of narratives through a very different lens than most people. I view them probabilistically and am nearly incapable of accepting them whole cloth. In fact, I see the entire world this way. I see nearly everything probabilistically. Perhaps it's because I am mildly autistic or perhaps it's just because I'm a mathematician at heart, I don't know. But I do know that in general, I often discount what others accept at fact. That's not to say that I don't believe he was illiterate. I'm sure there are very good reasons to believe this. But I discount the probabilities of the various assumptions that can be made based on that fact. Someone above said something to the tune of "that notebook couldn't possibly be his handwriting because Jackson was illiterate". That's an example of a conclusion that someone like me is incapable of making. I think that once a narrative gets formed and begins to perpetuate, particularly one that is 100+ years old, it can become nearly impossible to correct it.

This thread reminds me of the Luka Doncic signature drama. I can't tell you how many times I've encountered the narrative that "his mom signs his cards for him" because there are clear differences in some of his signatures. Some of his autos clearly say "Lulu" in swooping cursive letters that, admittedly, do appear to have a bit of a feminine looking flow to them, while other signatures of his look much more choppy and masculine. The theory is that he signs the masculine ones and had his mom (or some say girlfriend) sign the loopy ones. This is a widespread belief in the modern side of the hobby. You can find YouTube videos and dedicated threads to it on other forums. For many, it's a simple fact: "Luka's mom signs his cards". However, there are mutliple examples of people getting things signed by Luka in person, live on video, where he signs with the exact loopy, feminine-looking version of his signature, yet somehow, this narrative is still extremely difficult to combat. Imagine if we didn't have modern technology and we weren't able to witness him signing both forms of his signature right there before our very eyes. Imagine he was a player from the 1910s and all we had were two versions of his signatures to look at and the tales that got passed down from one generation to the next. I have no doubt that the accepted modern view would be that his mom signed the loopy ones and that only the choppy ones are authentic. Yet, this wouldn't be true. It often takes someone who discounts narratives at face value to see through the fog. That doesn't mean we should completely disregard narratives, but rather that it's beneficial to say, "perhaps that is what happened", or even "most likely, that is what happened", or "I'm sure some version of that is true". But it is a heavy handicap to discovering truth if one approaches these sorts of stories with the viewpoint of "we know X, therefore Y". If you don't question the axioms upon which X stands, then you will often be misled.

[...here come the arrows twisting my words into something ridiculous like me proposing that Jackson wasn't actually illiterate. Again, that's not what I'm saying, so if that's how this post comes across to you, please read it again before putting words in my mouth that I'm just going to have to spit back out...]

I wouldn't rule out Jackson becoming literate at some point, or being literate but simply not writing.

I worked with a guy who is for sure literate. He will not write unless he's almost forced to.
I was after him to sign his work orders once the job was finished, so I didn't come in a day later and waste time redoing it.
After a couple weeks he finally gave in and wrote his name on one. It took him 5 minutes, and made Jacksons signature look good. Apparently he has some bad dyslexia. We agreed that signing or initialing wasn't going to work but he would make a checkmark, x or maybe one initial.
Numbers are less of a problem except he writes so seldom it's also a slow thing.

When you think about it, he had little need to write to play baseball.
But it would be a big benefit in running a store.