The Market Place of Idea

The Myth of the “Marketplace of Ideas” on Campus
Conservative speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos and Charles Murray are rewarded for provocation, not quality of thought.

The more strenuously the marketplace rejects the ideas of speakers like Murray, the more valuable such speakers become.

https://newrepublic.com/article/141150/myth-marketplace-ideas-campus-charles-murray-milo-yiannopoulos

Yeah, I don't see the Marketplace of Ideas as working. People become entrenched and anything is only as strong as its weakest link, the whole concept seems flawed to me

Indeed, the “marketplace” is an elegant metaphor that doesn’t always behave as it does in our hopes and dreams. In reality, the marketplace of ideas is inextricable from the actual marketplace, which rewards people like Yiannopoulos with speaking fees and book sales not for the quality of his ideas but for the appeal of his performance. Even Murray, whom I believe does his scholarship in good faith, would have to admit that iconoclasm drives his reputation and book sales more than the superior quality of his work as a social scientist (however we rate that quality). Ultimately, the “marketplace of ideas” is a confused argument that promises the triumph of good ideas while delivering ordinary and unproductive provocation.

For me, our media's obsession with sensationalism goes some way to prove the above statement.

Change my mind.

Here is an idea, if a programmer writes hundreds of bots to setup x amount of fake accounts each and repeatedly post his opinion to or lies or propaganda to social media then should that be protected by free speech? It's genuinely what he thinks and if he influences opinion somehow then surely the marketplace of ideas is flawed cos it's supposed to be about the quality of ideas, not quantity

I agree that the 'free marketplace of ideas' is rather too idealistic to human nature, but I would also argue that a degree of idealism is necessary as an alternative to misanthropy. If we consider human wisdom and reason to be the virtue that distinguishes them from lesser animals, then refuting this degrades the value of humanity. Thus curtailing the FMoI to 'protect' humanity from 'bad' ideas is arguably futile.

Likewise, as in an earlier argument I made - if your concept of a 'good idea' is human-defined, suggesting that humans are too riddled with their own biases and inertia for the FMoI to work: how could you surely say, without axiomatic reasoning, that your ideas are in fact the 'good' ones?

Otherwise, you can look at the FMoI as the best way of simulating a scientific peer-review process for the larger quantity of ideas. Too idealistic perhaps but I would assert that it is the best option we have.

As for the 'provocateurs' I would assume that if their opponents spent more time actually criticising their ideas rather than calling them names - we might get somewhere.

TiberiusDidNothingWrong wrote:I agree that the 'free marketplace of ideas' is rather too idealistic to human nature, but I would also argue that a degree of idealism is necessary as an alternative to misanthropy. If we consider human wisdom and reason to be the virtue that distinguishes them from lesser animals, then refuting this degrades the value of humanity. Thus curtailing the FMoI to 'protect' humanity from 'bad' ideas is arguably futile.

Surely not, surely somethings are demonstrably false or even harmful. There are many experiments we could conduct that we don’t because they are unethical. I am not against sophistry in an attempt to spark creativity but I would think that should be within certain parameters.

Likewise, as in an earlier argument I made - if your concept of a 'good idea' is human-defined, suggesting that humans are too riddled with their own biases and inertia for the FMoI to work: how could you surely say, without axiomatic reasoning, that your ideas are in fact the 'good' ones?

Forget good; tell me what exactly constitutes an ‘idea’ in this instance? I would have thought that the usefulness of an idea may only be apparent after sometime. A lot of philosophy is famously useless. But then again, a  philosophical argument could be made that all activities are futile as life has no meaning, purpose, or elan.

Otherwise, you can look at the FMoI as the best way of simulating a scientific peer-review process for the larger quantity of ideas. Too idealistic perhaps but I would assert that it is the best option we have.

As for the 'provocateurs' I would assume that if their opponents spent more time actually criticising their ideas rather than calling them names - we might get somewhere.

I don’t agree. To assume that all ideas would get a fair hearing and be subject to survival of the fittest assumes a level playing field (meritocracy). I have nothing against experts speaking on their field of expertise and finding it easier to gain traction (technocracy). But going back to your original paragraph, I don’t deny that we have higher reasoning than animals but we aren’t consistent as a species or individuals. I could waffle on about why Meritocracy is a flawed idea for society and I think equally flawed for FMoI, but I will spare you that.

As for the provocateurs, I find them boring and uninspiring. I am not sure why I would even engage one in conversation if asked. There are many books by people I have respect for that I haven’t read yet. I have seen many psychologists criticise Jordan Peterson for promoting his version of Jungianism, so I feel reasonably assured that if I wanted to know about Jung I should start elsewhere - probably with Jung himself.

If the MoFI is important would say that people should be compelled to platform certain things, anti-gay views for example, if you believe it serves the greater good? I am always unsure how much of the advocation for this idea is down to egalitarian ideals and much to percieved functionality.

Quality over quantity, a system is only as strong as it's weakest link.

The absolutism and refusal to be selective of the Market Place of Ideas proponents reminds me of sceptics who, in search of truth, argue that we can't really know anything in order not to become egotistical. (The PoMo idea of totalising knowledge being bad for instance.)

Neither seem pratical. The sceptics seem crippled with uncertainity and prevent you from ever knowing anything and as for the Market Place, is there any evidence that a lot of uniformed people shouting at each other is some how superior to informed discussion?

I don't suppose you have ever read Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition or any Frankfurt School, have you?

If you want to use the Market Place of Ideas which is directly analogous to free-market economics then why couldn't racist speech be classed as unfair trade practice or false advertising? Otherwise, the analogy only extends so far and is meaningless.

Even if the MPoI is a good idea it means we should have a much stronger commitment to education and I can't see any government funding an anything goes education system. Education trains people for the workplace and should provide them with usable skills.

People seem to assume the state will run wild confusing censorship and civility but this assumes a poor government and the goodness of the people. If you cannot guarantee the Market place provides good ideas then it just serves as socialisation. Society is not like an Oxford debating club. Just look at the moral panics the media provides.

Blibber.

As for what is ‘false’ could prompt a separate philosophical debate. If something is demonstrably false, by axiomatic logic as is 2 + 2 = 5 then it can be so easily seen by a reasonable creature, as humans are to that extent, as false – thus censoring it is worthless. What is demonstrably wrong censors itself.

Most under this debate falls into a weaker form of falsity, one that is not axiomatic and thus never certain. Regardless you should not have to censor a ‘bad’ idea.

As for what is ‘harmful’ is quite moot, more so is the degree by which the proponents of an idea can be held accountable to the harm the idea may cause.

An idea is a concept, I don’t see the purpose in arguing its definition.

You didn’t really give much critique to the major argument other than disagreeing with it, so I can’t say much.

I don’t pay attention to the provocateurs either.

I’m not sure what your point is in the penultimate paragraph of the first response. I would be fine with prioritising ‘ideas’ that have a greater weight of truth behind them, a regulated market so to speak – so long as all ideas are allowed; and that ideas of fair evidence are given representation.

‘Quality over quantity’ does not contradict with the idea of a FMoI. Only the FMoI prioritises ‘good’ and culls ‘bad’ ideas as a natural process – arguably fostering the quality of the prioritised ideas.

Most people are uninformed, and even ‘experts’ can often be unable to reason properly. The FMoI indirectly selects ‘good’ ideas and prunes the ‘bad’, the difference being that ‘good’ ideas are ‘judged’ impartially in reference to one another, rather than arbitrarily by some authority, and that the pruned ideas are not restricted by law, but by reason.

I didn’t compare the FMoI to an economic market aside from using the term.

Again you seem to be assuming that the government are more qualified to decide which are the ‘good’ ideas and which to curtail, than are the general public.

In general you might know that I am not arguing from the perspective of a personal morality, but I present three points, alongside the standing leading argument:
1. That a FMoI better reflects that desire for freedom innate to humanity.
2. That a FMoI can be assumed to better promote innovation.
3. That the concept of protecting humanity from itself is itself a moot concept and does not appeal   to an absolute morality, or even a relative one being that that ‘relative’ is another fluid set of human ideas.

TiberiusDidNothingWrong wrote:I didn’t compare the FMoI to an economic market aside from using the term.

But the term originates from John Milton and John Stuart Mill who was specifically creating an economics analogy. Otherwise, the name is redundant and we are talking about a vague and undefined abstraction detached from its original meaning.

Milton was not a fan of trusting something as erratic as market forces when dealing with blasphemy and religion. In fact, he praised the Anthenian censors’ banning of “Blasphemous and Atheisicall”.

So he didn’t seem to trust the idea that sound ideas will be false and eventually removed, just look at religion, 2000 years for Christianity and it’s still going and in America it’s even worse https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/

So no censorship, the US has limited free speech.

Today, freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.[14] Based on John Milton's arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:
1. the right to seek information and ideas;
2. the right to receive information and ideas;
3. the right to impart information and ideas
International, regional and national standards also recognize that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, be it orally, in written, in print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Information and idea, any medium.the So what about distribution of child porn? Your consequentialist view may seek censorship and restriction of physical acts like ones that lead to violence. You previously stated that death threats should be unprosecuted if they are not enacted but what about JUST distribution of child porn? Distributors would not necessarily create it and without censoring that you would create a market. Do you not think censorship has a purpose there?

-As I have asserted I am under no delusion that the idealism of the FMoI is entirely compatible with human nature, but likewise I would say the same for the alternative, and from all the points argued I would think the FMoI to be the better option.

Christianity along with other non-immigrant religions are dying in the west as a whole, part of the reason as to why they are not so much following the trend in the US is because there isn't so much criticism of religion. Further, I wouldn't consider religion to be a uniformly 'bad' idea - Christianity I would rather see encouraged if in the face of Islam. It is not a fair criticism of the FMoI that within certain groups supposed 'bad' ideas are declining more slowly or not at all, especially where the idea is in fact declining on the whole. On the contrary, part of the reason why Islam is such a problem is because criticism of Islam is censored.

-I don't think it's entirely fair or meaningful to call my views consequentialist. My beliefs are modelled on the standards we already have in law for more significant crimes such as Murder, these have components in both the Mens Rea, which is not consequentialist, and the Actus Reus, including after effect. It is not a crime to think about murdering somebody, nor is it a crime to talk about murdering somebody when it can be gathered that you have no intention to follow through, even if it 'offends' them. It becomes a crime when there is a presence of a meaningfully harmful action, whether in intent or in action.

I wouldn't limit my definition to violence, so much as meaningful modes of harm. Child pornography isn't an 'idea' nor is it an act of speech and the imagery is meaningfully harmful to the child.

I’ll leave it there cos we can’t reach an agreement which brings me to a final point, what if people don’t/can’t agree? Many debates today are centuries old and the Marketplace of Ideas would surely be of limited value if a consensus could not be reached.

Axiomatic logic hasn’t told us how to create a unified field theory and I can’t say for certain but I am sure it had nothing to do with Chaos Theory which was discovered accidentally and developed by experts in the field.

But a huge number of Americans believe in Angels and we still have religion

This is a fair flaw in the FMoI as it is in humanity. People are very resistant to change, and arguments are oft times battles of ego rather than truth, meaning that people will rarely concede - yet in many cases it can still be a productive process. I might expect that encouraging people to be open-minded from a young age and exposing them to a wide variety of idea without forcing them to 'right' ideas may make people more willing to embrace new ideas in the context of an argument and thus making debates more constructive as a whole. I doubt people would be so dogmatic in their religion if they were exposed to criticism from a critical age, likewise to the dominating aspects of PC culture that are so rigorously enforced in education.

Axiomatic logic is a means of verifying something rather than inventing new concepts. Of course, the matter of innovation is a wide debate but I think that the way education works in this day impedes innovation and encourages 'tunnel vision' - where people know only how to build incrementally on the work of others in highly specialised fields, rather than thinking more broadly and perhaps reassessing the foundations. Truly - as you mention under chaos theory - many major innovations are identified by accident, often whilst working in an entirely separate field - but the way that scientists are isolated under the modern system may well impede this.

I would say again that I don't believe religion to be an overall bad idea, I think that it and its sub-concepts can help people - and it's rather more comforting to believe in God, gods, or spirits of some variety in opposition to affective nihilism. I dislike how the dogma discourages the free thought I have praised, and can be anti-science which I despise - but I think it has its virtues. I can't personally believe in any of the religious items above because, lacking the early familiarisation of the concepts, they read to me as illogical and that only.

Some people are more skilled at convincing people, we often go off our impressions of people rather than their ideas, just look at our politicians

https://www.bustle.com/p/9-genius-ways-to-change-someones-mind-according-to-science-2307178

Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds
New discoveries about the human mind show the limitations of reason.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

People don't want facts, they want stories claims the author of new book, The Myth Gap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZHXtguQCP8

If you are unmoved by any of this then you are not willing to be persuaded and that highlights why the marketplace won't work as well as anything I can say

Alex Evans is talking shit for the most part. He can argue the 'myth gap' all he likes but it doesn't change the fact that the guy's impressions of a 'logical and evidenced' side of a debate are as ill-founded as what he is arguing against.

If I didn't know better I might almost get the impression that the book is a satire, arguing the 'myth gap' from a meta-perspective - but it's unlikely he's that self-aware.

10% of a Population

Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute[1] have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(sociology)

Just came across that, and I think it's germane.