Following up on the last post, there seems to be an abundance of poor arguments on the internet. Here is my theory as to why.
Earlier this year, I discussed a new paper on the evolutionary function of reasoning. The paper states that most people have poor individual reasoning skills and, on their own, produce biased arguments. The magic happens when people argue within a group and expose the weaker arguments. Thus, the experiments show that when at least some members of the group have the correct argument, they can convince others and that usually “truth wins”.
So why isn’t this happening on the internet, why isn’t “truth winning”? My theory is that people are dropping bad arguments, and then simply exiting the discussion. They might read an article, post their (biased) opinions in a comment, and then never come back. Or maybe they might come back at a later date after they have solidified their biased opinion.
In other words, if people don’t discuss things or engage in dialogue, then there is no mechanism to root out the bad arguments. You can’t convince someone if they’re not there.
Notice how this plays out differently online versus in a real conversation. Very rarely in a face-to-face conversation is someone going to make their argument, and then just leave the conversation without hearing others’ points of view. Why would anyone want to talk with such a person? Conversations, by their nature, are two-way streets.
Given the setup of the internet, I don’t see an easy solution to this. It’s not like you can force people to discuss things. Given this, I think the quality of arguments on the internet will only get worse over time.
I happen to be against intellectual property because of Stephan Kinsella, Michele Boldrin, and David K. Levine. They made good arguments. Meanwhile, the people who commented on the Mellencamp thing weren’t making arguments; they were making excuses. And Mellencamp was just plain dreaming- people copy because the cost is zero- the copying in no way represents lost revenue because if there was a cost involve no one would do it; it represents free advertising more than anything else. Good arguments are out there to be found, but I suspect that one first needs a desire to find them- to actually expose one’s self to ideas not already held, and then some sort of pattern recognition with which to assess a new argument as at least plausible if not true.
I think the arguments against intellectual property are weak and hypothetical. As to copying, there are people on the margin who would have bought if copying wasn’t available. Think Napster didn’t lead to lost record sales? You would have a hard time arguing that one.
But, as you say, in the end it’s all about arguments and exposing yourself to different points of view.
My issues with intellectual property laws are not not hypothetical at all. They’re legal.
From a legal standpoint, intellectual property laws do not (acording to the constitution) exist to “give artists what they deserve” or whatever else the industries involved have tried to convince us of. They exist “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”.
Frankly, the current state of our IP laws does the opposite. They become something to hide behind. Rather than innovating and moving forward, artists and inventors can rest on the copyright or patent of something they created half a lifetime ago, or inhibiting creativity by suing people with only a shred of evidence that any infringement has occurred. As expensive as our legal system is to navigate, huge organizations like the RIAA/MPAA can do this on a whim, and smaller companies and individuals that can’t afford legal fees to fight the claim have no choice but to acquiesce.
The idea that this is “right” or what they “deserve” is a wholly modern one. In what other industry can you get paid for the rest of your life for work you did one time?
I actually regret the demise of Usenet (specifically Misc.Fitness.Weights) where conversation was the whole point of the community. Poorly reasoned opinions were essentially driven off by the likes of Mel Siff and Lyle MacDonald. Contrarians abounded and the discussion was almost always illuminating.
But I’m not sure I buy truth being consensual. Just as often the opinion arrived at by the group is wrong, at least in the fitness world where fads and marketing seem to trump tried and proven.
Of course, I was one of those contrary opinions quite often…
The experiments show that truth doesn’t always win, but usually wins. There are things like groupthink and other issues that can block a group from reaching consensus.