3 ms·

He's also in a room that is more likely to contain someone who will change the course of progress than most rooms are. The audience matters. ;-)

pdonis 13y ago
He's also in a room that is more likely to contain someone who will change the course of progress than most rooms are. True, but not relevant to the argument I'm making. The fact that his attempt to influence people might well have more leverage because of his audience doesn't make influencing people, as opposed to informing them, any more right than it would otherwise be. In fact, it might make it even worse. Look at it this way: his basic argument is that humanity's most valuable asset is ideas. The more good ideas we have, the better. And the best way to spread ideas is replication--people learn them from other people. So he's basically saying that influencing people is good because it helps to spread good ideas. But here's the thing: in a sane society, good ideas don't need help to spread. They spread naturally, because people are not fools. If you have a good idea, use it. In this case, instead of telling people how important he thinks it is to develop good tools for thinking, he should just do it--develop tools for thinking that he thinks are good, and use them to do some superior thinking. If he's right, people will naturally adopt the tools because they can see that the tools work. But when you add "influence" into the mix, you now have created a second way for ideas to spread, one that does not depend on whether or not they are actually good ideas. If people start thinking, hey, this guy is a mover and shaker, a "thought leader", someone I should listen to, they will spread his idea even if it's not a good idea. So influencing people, persuading people, in fact will have the opposite effect to the one he thinks: it's not needed to spread good ideas, but it can help to spread bad ideas that would otherwise die out. And if his audience contains people who are more likely to spread whatever ideas he persuades them to spread, the damage done by a bad idea is even greater.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  I think we just have to disagree here. In my mind, if you think something is a legitimately good idea, then you're almost obligated to try to influence others to take it on. Ideas do, in my experience, need help to spread. Particularly if they are unorthodox ideas. There's a resistance to ideas that live outside the box, they aren't automatically accepted by people just because they're good. I work really hard at evaluating ideas that are new to me based on their merits. But it's sometimes extremely difficult to do. And,to be completely blunt, most people don't make the effort, even if they're otherwise intelligent.
  - pdonis 13y ago
    In my mind, if you think something is a legitimately good idea, then you're almost obligated to try to influence others to take it on. In other words, you think that just your opinion that it's a good idea is sufficient to justify influencing others, even if you haven't actually tried it? You don't feel any obligation to test it yourself first, to see whether it's really a good idea or whether you were mistaken? How does that square with this: I work really hard at evaluating ideas that are new to me based on their merits. But it's sometimes extremely difficult to do. In other words, you admit it's very difficult to evaluate new ideas, but yet you think you're obligated to try to influence others to adopt them without having tried them yourself first? Wouldn't it be much more sensible to try the idea yourself first, since it's so difficult to evaluate it on its merits just by looking at it? There's a resistance to ideas that live outside the box, they aren't automatically accepted by people just because they're good. I do disagree with this as you state it, yes. I would say there is resistance to out of the box ideas that have not been demonstrated to work. And the way to overcome this resistance is to demonstrate that the idea works, instead of trumpeting how good it is before you've tested it yourself. most people don't make the effort, even if they're otherwise intelligent. Yes, that's true. And I would say it's because people's time and energy are limited, and they already have enough to do with it without adopting this new idea that you say is so great, but you have no evidence to back it up. Edit: I should add that I put a key qualifier in my statement about good ideas spreading naturally: I said it happens that way in a sane society. I do not think we currently live in a sane society, and the reason why is that in our society, the second method of spreading ideas has crowded out the first one. People don't evaluate ideas based on whether they've been demonstrated to work; they evaluate them based on who is saying they're good ideas. So there are actually two reasons why "there's a resistance to ideas that live outside the box"; in addition to the one I gave above (that there's a resistance to out of the box ideas that haven't been demonstrated to work), there is also a second reason: there's a resistance to ideas that are "out of the box" in the sense that they come from a source that isn't on the list of "approved" sources for ideas. The second reason could apply even to an idea that has been demonstrated to work. But even in that case, the reason for trying to get the idea adopted should still be "this idea has been demonstrated to work", not "I think this is a good idea, even though I'm not on your list of approved sources for ideas".

pdonis 13y ago

He's also in a room that is more likely to contain someone who will change the course of progress than most rooms are. True, but not relevant to the argument I'm making. The fact that his attempt to influence people might well have more leverage because of his audience doesn't make influencing people, as opposed to informing them, any more right than it would otherwise be. In fact, it might make it even worse. Look at it this way: his basic argument is that humanity's most valuable asset is ideas. The more good ideas we have, the better. And the best way to spread ideas is replication--people learn them from other people. So he's basically saying that influencing people is good because it helps to spread good ideas. But here's the thing: in a sane society, good ideas don't need help to spread. They spread naturally, because people are not fools. If you have a good idea, use it. In this case, instead of telling people how important he thinks it is to develop good tools for thinking, he should just do it--develop tools for thinking that he thinks are good, and use them to do some superior thinking. If he's right, people will naturally adopt the tools because they can see that the tools work. But when you add "influence" into the mix, you now have created a second way for ideas to spread, one that does not depend on whether or not they are actually good ideas. If people start thinking, hey, this guy is a mover and shaker, a "thought leader", someone I should listen to, they will spread his idea even if it's not a good idea. So influencing people, persuading people, in fact will have the opposite effect to the one he thinks: it's not needed to spread good ideas, but it can help to spread bad ideas that would otherwise die out. And if his audience contains people who are more likely to spread whatever ideas he persuades them to spread, the damage done by a bad idea is even greater.

waterlesscloud 13y ago
I think we just have to disagree here. In my mind, if you think something is a legitimately good idea, then you're almost obligated to try to influence others to take it on. Ideas do, in my experience, need help to spread. Particularly if they are unorthodox ideas. There's a resistance to ideas that live outside the box, they aren't automatically accepted by people just because they're good. I work really hard at evaluating ideas that are new to me based on their merits. But it's sometimes extremely difficult to do. And,to be completely blunt, most people don't make the effort, even if they're otherwise intelligent.
- pdonis 13y ago
  In my mind, if you think something is a legitimately good idea, then you're almost obligated to try to influence others to take it on. In other words, you think that just your opinion that it's a good idea is sufficient to justify influencing others, even if you haven't actually tried it? You don't feel any obligation to test it yourself first, to see whether it's really a good idea or whether you were mistaken? How does that square with this: I work really hard at evaluating ideas that are new to me based on their merits. But it's sometimes extremely difficult to do. In other words, you admit it's very difficult to evaluate new ideas, but yet you think you're obligated to try to influence others to adopt them without having tried them yourself first? Wouldn't it be much more sensible to try the idea yourself first, since it's so difficult to evaluate it on its merits just by looking at it? There's a resistance to ideas that live outside the box, they aren't automatically accepted by people just because they're good. I do disagree with this as you state it, yes. I would say there is resistance to out of the box ideas that have not been demonstrated to work. And the way to overcome this resistance is to demonstrate that the idea works, instead of trumpeting how good it is before you've tested it yourself. most people don't make the effort, even if they're otherwise intelligent. Yes, that's true. And I would say it's because people's time and energy are limited, and they already have enough to do with it without adopting this new idea that you say is so great, but you have no evidence to back it up. Edit: I should add that I put a key qualifier in my statement about good ideas spreading naturally: I said it happens that way in a sane society. I do not think we currently live in a sane society, and the reason why is that in our society, the second method of spreading ideas has crowded out the first one. People don't evaluate ideas based on whether they've been demonstrated to work; they evaluate them based on who is saying they're good ideas. So there are actually two reasons why "there's a resistance to ideas that live outside the box"; in addition to the one I gave above (that there's a resistance to out of the box ideas that haven't been demonstrated to work), there is also a second reason: there's a resistance to ideas that are "out of the box" in the sense that they come from a source that isn't on the list of "approved" sources for ideas. The second reason could apply even to an idea that has been demonstrated to work. But even in that case, the reason for trying to get the idea adopted should still be "this idea has been demonstrated to work", not "I think this is a good idea, even though I'm not on your list of approved sources for ideas".