5 ms·

A marketplace of ideas only works if every single idea every person has is actively chosen based on analysis of alternatives. Given that applies to about 0% of

A marketplace of ideas only works if every single idea every person has is actively chosen based on analysis of alternatives. Given that applies to about 0% of beliefs for most people, I'd say the idea has some flaws. If you immediately reject that, you're not very open to external ideas, are you? If you don't immediately reject it, you see how a market can be subverted to serve purposes that it was never intended to or constructed to resist. Either way, the idea of a marketplace of ideas is paradoxical in the extremes. And once you acknowledge the idea needs to be softened to avoid self-contradiction, you end up back at the question of what constitutes abuse. That's the exact same question people are wrestling with now. And because it's inherently an expression of a power struggle, you need to be aware of whose power you're supporting. I recommend siding against authoritarians and fascists, but that's just my idea.

freedomben 4y ago
I think your premise is flawed: > A marketplace of ideas only works if every single idea every person has is actively chosen based on analysis of alternatives. What is required is exposure to alternatives. It's not a perfect nor an instantaneous process, but it absolutely works. I've changed my position many times based on rational argumentation. If they are never exposed to the alternatives, the majority of people will just continue believing in what they already believe, of which the bulk comes from upbringing.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  The marketplace of ideas can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
- jacobolus 4y ago
  What is required is people arguing in good faith and telling the truth. Systematic omnipresent bad-faith argument appealing to strong emotions and flat-out lying about basic facts can easily overwhelm people’s reasoning, empathy, and capacity for independent fact checking.
  - hiptobecubic 4y ago
    It blows my mind that we're still trying to explain this to people after watching the last few years unfold.
  - freedomben 4y ago
    The problem is, when somebody is disagreeing with you it's extremely tempting to declare them "in bad faith" or "flat out lying." For example the "Lab Leak Theory" was banned as disinformation and people mentioning it were roundly mocked and disparaged (I was somewhat guilty of mocking those people also because it seemed too conspiratorial to me and many of the "usual" conspiracy nuts were all too eager to jump on Lab Leak). But then we found out that it was actually more plausible than it seemed. However the accounts of people honestly trying to make the case had long been banned already, and there was nowhere to go to get their reputations back. So I fully agree that "Systematic omnipresent bad-faith argument appealing to strong emotions and flat-out lying" is poison to the mind, but I think it's also reached for way too quickly and can and has been abused to silence opinions we don't like.
    - jacobolus 4y ago
      The “lab leak theory” was propounded by a bunch of people who did flat out lie, and made all sorts of bad faith claims (including e.g. Fox News commentators, predictable anti-China trolls, and fringe conspiracy nutters [not mutually exclusive categories]). They well deserved to be mocked and disparaged, and without them the conversation would have been dramatically healthier and more productive. There were also serious people asking legitimate questions, but those got much less media-circus attention and their commentary was much less self assured, full of caveats and explicit attention to the speculative/hypothetical nature of the claims involved. Those were part of a more scholarly/careful conversation (still ongoing) and were answered carefully and respectfully. One of the biggest problems for anyone asking careful serious questions is the likelihood that they’d be mischaracterized and amplified by the crazies and then interpreted by the general public according to that mischaracterization and roped into some broader political fight. > found out that it was actually more plausible than it seemed It was always plausible, as scientists have maintained from the start. It still today (if you listen to conversations among experts and look into the details) seems unlikely, and the “natural origin” theory has somewhat more convincing evidentiary support. But the Chinese government’s reflexive secrecy has made it impossible for independent analysts to gather the information needed to prove or disprove the theory.
tonguez 4y ago
“A marketplace of ideas only works if every single idea every person has is actively chosen based on analysis of alternatives.” nah

freedomben 4y ago

I think your premise is flawed: > A marketplace of ideas only works if every single idea every person has is actively chosen based on analysis of alternatives. What is required is exposure to alternatives. It's not a perfect nor an instantaneous process, but it absolutely works. I've changed my position many times based on rational argumentation. If they are never exposed to the alternatives, the majority of people will just continue believing in what they already believe, of which the bulk comes from upbringing.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
The marketplace of ideas can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
jacobolus 4y ago
What is required is people arguing in good faith and telling the truth. Systematic omnipresent bad-faith argument appealing to strong emotions and flat-out lying about basic facts can easily overwhelm people’s reasoning, empathy, and capacity for independent fact checking.
- hiptobecubic 4y ago
  It blows my mind that we're still trying to explain this to people after watching the last few years unfold.
- freedomben 4y ago
  The problem is, when somebody is disagreeing with you it's extremely tempting to declare them "in bad faith" or "flat out lying." For example the "Lab Leak Theory" was banned as disinformation and people mentioning it were roundly mocked and disparaged (I was somewhat guilty of mocking those people also because it seemed too conspiratorial to me and many of the "usual" conspiracy nuts were all too eager to jump on Lab Leak). But then we found out that it was actually more plausible than it seemed. However the accounts of people honestly trying to make the case had long been banned already, and there was nowhere to go to get their reputations back. So I fully agree that "Systematic omnipresent bad-faith argument appealing to strong emotions and flat-out lying" is poison to the mind, but I think it's also reached for way too quickly and can and has been abused to silence opinions we don't like.
  - jacobolus 4y ago
    The “lab leak theory” was propounded by a bunch of people who did flat out lie, and made all sorts of bad faith claims (including e.g. Fox News commentators, predictable anti-China trolls, and fringe conspiracy nutters [not mutually exclusive categories]). They well deserved to be mocked and disparaged, and without them the conversation would have been dramatically healthier and more productive. There were also serious people asking legitimate questions, but those got much less media-circus attention and their commentary was much less self assured, full of caveats and explicit attention to the speculative/hypothetical nature of the claims involved. Those were part of a more scholarly/careful conversation (still ongoing) and were answered carefully and respectfully. One of the biggest problems for anyone asking careful serious questions is the likelihood that they’d be mischaracterized and amplified by the crazies and then interpreted by the general public according to that mischaracterization and roped into some broader political fight. > found out that it was actually more plausible than it seemed It was always plausible, as scientists have maintained from the start. It still today (if you listen to conversations among experts and look into the details) seems unlikely, and the “natural origin” theory has somewhat more convincing evidentiary support. But the Chinese government’s reflexive secrecy has made it impossible for independent analysts to gather the information needed to prove or disprove the theory.

tonguez 4y ago

“A marketplace of ideas only works if every single idea every person has is actively chosen based on analysis of alternatives.” nah