A few different sources have also discussed the idea that we are out of the Age of Information, and into the Age of Attention, and that attention is the currency of the day.
Now, has anyone found these ideas combined in a short online text or video to present the idea that: If you find an idea to be ideologically offensive, the best way to fight it is to not engage it in argument but to starve it of attention and let the cat photo and inspirational quote weeds of social media grow over what ever fertile soil it may have found.
...then you should consider disengaging the concepts of “idea” and “offensive”.
the best way to fight it is to not engage it in argument but to starve it of attention
That depends. Some ideas will wither and die, but some will spread like weeds without opposition. I don’t know how to decide ex ante what will happen to an idea ignored.
then you should consider disengaging the concepts of “idea” and “offensive”.
I dunno. I think it’s pretty reasonable to consider ideas like these offensive:
“We should just kill all the Jews.”
“People with black hair are less than human and we needn’t care about hurting them.”
“If your net worth is less than $10M, who cares what you want?”
“Everyone should have to affirm that everything in the Bible is 100% literal truth, or be executed.”
What’s actually offensive is endorsing these ideas, not their mere existence, but I’m pretty sure that’s the kind of offensiveness wadavis has in mind.
(Perhaps there are better responses than offence to someone who seriously endorses this sort of thing. If so, I bet it’s because getting offended at all is unhelpful, not because getting offended at ideas is specially unhelpful.)
’m pretty sure that’s the kind of offensiveness wadavis has in mind
I don’t know—if “endorsing” is the problem, then the target of your starve-of-attention campaign should be the person (people, organizations, etc.) who had endorsed, not the idea itself. But my impression was that wadavis was talking about ignoring ideas.
because getting offended at all is unhelpful, not because getting offended at ideas is specially unhelpful
if “endorsing” is the problem, then the target of your starve-of-attention campaign should be the person [...] But my impression was that wadavis was talking about ignoring ideas.
If the problem is that people endorse the idea then starving the idea of attention might be a reasonable approach. The aim would be to reduce the number of other people getting persuaded to endorse the idea, rather than to change the minds (or destroy the credibility) of the people already persuaded.
But I agree with Lumifer that ignoring bad ideas is not always the answer. Many bad ideas are kind of marginal and if you ignore them they’ll wither. Others will catch on. Even if they die off eventually, they can cause a lot of damage before they do (the 20th century provides ample evidence of this, and the 21 is providing addition evidence).
Even if they die off eventually, they can cause a lot of damage before they do (the 20th century provides ample evidence of this, and the 21 is providing addition evidence).
Which ideas are you talking about? If you are talking about something like communism, it wasn’t really ignored.
Communism and National Socialism are two examples of what I had in mind for the 20th century.
If you are talking about something like communism, it wasn’t really ignored.
That is certainly true. If we could somehow get everyone to simply ignore bad ideas, then yes, bad ideas would wither. The problem is, I have direct control over only what I ignore. Even if I choose to ignore a bad idea, others likely will not. Now lets suppose an entire group of really thoughtful people (e.g. the LW community, perhaps) could be convinced to ignore bad ideas—there are still going to be plenty of people discussing bad ideas, and so bad ideas might catch on. All we’ve really accomplished is removing a group of (presumably) reasonable, thoughtful people from the discussion – and I don’t see how that would be helpful.
An alternative to ignoring a bad idea is to confront it in a dispassionate manner; i.e. present good arguments as to why the idea is bad and address the arguments made by supporters of the bad idea while avoiding appeals to emotion, ad hominem arguments, other logical fallacies, etc. This allows us to address the bad idea without (hopefully) ramping up the anger and polarizing affects discussed in the video.
So, should we confront all bad ideas? I don’t think so; plenty of bad ideas are marginal enough that ignoring them is probably the right answer. For example, it is possible today to find on the internet people arguing in favor of a return to National Socialism. In much of the world, this idea finds little traction (unlike in the 1930s). Therefore, it may be the case that today, ignoring this attitude is the best approach. However, if this attitude ever begins becoming mainstream, then we should switch strategies and address rather than ignore the idea.
This Video Will Make You Angry by CGP Grey discusses the meme-ic virility of controversial arguments.
A few different sources have also discussed the idea that we are out of the Age of Information, and into the Age of Attention, and that attention is the currency of the day.
Now, has anyone found these ideas combined in a short online text or video to present the idea that: If you find an idea to be ideologically offensive, the best way to fight it is to not engage it in argument but to starve it of attention and let the cat photo and inspirational quote weeds of social media grow over what ever fertile soil it may have found.
...then you should consider disengaging the concepts of “idea” and “offensive”.
That depends. Some ideas will wither and die, but some will spread like weeds without opposition. I don’t know how to decide ex ante what will happen to an idea ignored.
I dunno. I think it’s pretty reasonable to consider ideas like these offensive:
“We should just kill all the Jews.”
“People with black hair are less than human and we needn’t care about hurting them.”
“If your net worth is less than $10M, who cares what you want?”
“Everyone should have to affirm that everything in the Bible is 100% literal truth, or be executed.”
What’s actually offensive is endorsing these ideas, not their mere existence, but I’m pretty sure that’s the kind of offensiveness wadavis has in mind.
(Perhaps there are better responses than offence to someone who seriously endorses this sort of thing. If so, I bet it’s because getting offended at all is unhelpful, not because getting offended at ideas is specially unhelpful.)
I don’t know—if “endorsing” is the problem, then the target of your starve-of-attention campaign should be the person (people, organizations, etc.) who had endorsed, not the idea itself. But my impression was that wadavis was talking about ignoring ideas.
Well, both :-)
If the problem is that people endorse the idea then starving the idea of attention might be a reasonable approach. The aim would be to reduce the number of other people getting persuaded to endorse the idea, rather than to change the minds (or destroy the credibility) of the people already persuaded.
Great video!
But I agree with Lumifer that ignoring bad ideas is not always the answer. Many bad ideas are kind of marginal and if you ignore them they’ll wither. Others will catch on. Even if they die off eventually, they can cause a lot of damage before they do (the 20th century provides ample evidence of this, and the 21 is providing addition evidence).
Which ideas are you talking about? If you are talking about something like communism, it wasn’t really ignored.
Communism and National Socialism are two examples of what I had in mind for the 20th century.
That is certainly true. If we could somehow get everyone to simply ignore bad ideas, then yes, bad ideas would wither. The problem is, I have direct control over only what I ignore. Even if I choose to ignore a bad idea, others likely will not. Now lets suppose an entire group of really thoughtful people (e.g. the LW community, perhaps) could be convinced to ignore bad ideas—there are still going to be plenty of people discussing bad ideas, and so bad ideas might catch on. All we’ve really accomplished is removing a group of (presumably) reasonable, thoughtful people from the discussion – and I don’t see how that would be helpful.
An alternative to ignoring a bad idea is to confront it in a dispassionate manner; i.e. present good arguments as to why the idea is bad and address the arguments made by supporters of the bad idea while avoiding appeals to emotion, ad hominem arguments, other logical fallacies, etc. This allows us to address the bad idea without (hopefully) ramping up the anger and polarizing affects discussed in the video.
So, should we confront all bad ideas? I don’t think so; plenty of bad ideas are marginal enough that ignoring them is probably the right answer. For example, it is possible today to find on the internet people arguing in favor of a return to National Socialism. In much of the world, this idea finds little traction (unlike in the 1930s). Therefore, it may be the case that today, ignoring this attitude is the best approach. However, if this attitude ever begins becoming mainstream, then we should switch strategies and address rather than ignore the idea.
One problem is that if a bad idea is allowed to progress long enough, it is no longer safe to present any arguments against it.
This is true. So, it is probably better to err on the side of addressing, rather than ignoring, bad ideas.