As I've made this blog a repository for my socially unacceptable ideas, those ideas are less likely to reach the people who most need them. People who used to read my blog when I wrote about poker and sports and movies have stopped reading now that I write about religion and politics.
At first they used to post comments, or talk to me directly. Their tones became less friendly, and then they stopped entirely. Now I'm left with a few regular readers who are generally supportive of my ideas, and a bunch of random traffic that google throws my way.
I suppose that some of my regulars have been exposed to some new ideas and made modest changes to their mindset because of this blog. So I've traded the opportunity to expose lots of people to radical (relative to their current frame) ideas, for the ability to have a dialog with like-minded people. I suppose it is possible that some of those who have left will remember what they saw here and it might influence them at some point. And it has been cool to make some new friends and get to know a few people better.
Also, I have cats and I'm selling my house and the NBA finals start tonight. Woohoo I've exposed you to new ideas. That's what this is all about.
5 comments:
Over the years I've found that I am more easily influenced by people who generally think like me than by those who differ radically from my point of view.
So preaching to the choir isn't as bad as most people think. (Also, it's fun to read other people's rants when they get upset at the same things that upset me!)
I still love you adspar.
In response to trakker, I kinda disagree there. While "preaching to the choir" may help solidify and indoctrinate your core believers, it runs the danger of alienating you from influencing others.
I'm taking my hypothesis here from what I see in policy, where I work. For instance, say that scientists want more money to prove that wood floats. Scientists know that this is really cool stuff, and they tell other scientists, and all the scientists agree that this is all really neat stuff. Everyone's very happy in the wood-driven scientific community. When they go to ask Mr. Government for the money to do this neat thing the G-Man looks at the scientists and asks why figuring out if wood floats is more important than cancer research. The scientists, never having bothered to figure out how to react to an outside perspective, react how scientists do: with scientific babble that no one could possibly understand. And if Mr. G doesn't understand scientific babble, then Mr. G is clearly not smart enough to hold court with the scientists, and they come across as elitist and egotistic.
However, the reality is that the scientists are out of touch with reality, because there exists a budget process, there exists multiple priorities, there exists other really neat ideas that might deserve funding, and there exists many many things that the scientists did not bother to think about.
Eventually, as this self-important behavior persists and a perochial mindset becomes endemic in the science community, there develops a muted distrust, even hostility, between Mr. G and the wood-faring scientists. The deeper this grows, the greater and more unique the effort is needed to overcome it.
Just an example.
While insulating the community does "run the risk of alienation" as you said, it is far from guaranteed, especially when the community tries to actively understand others.
I hope that my community of core believers actively tries to understand the rest of the world. I've certainly seen Trakker trying to make sense of people who he disagrees with, and I think I've done the same here.
Your scientists need to pay more attention to the processes and mindsets that influence their funding, and take it more into account. (Or they need to pay someone to do it for them if they can't get out of the lab.)
Also, while my blog isn't the instrument of diversity it once was, I still actively try to get perspective from people. I just have to work harder now, and give up any hope of them ever reading my blog.
I respect that, and agree that the approach you outlined is important. I just wanted to voice my opinion that it can be dangerous to think "preaching to the choir" is all you need. If it's tempered with an understanding of the "outside" world then no harm done. But, there's always a danger of speaking inward, and that's what I wanted to give my two cents on.
And yes my scientists do need to pay more attention to reality. I agree. Some do, and they are the spokesmen to the cruel outside world, as am I to some extent, but in general, they need to do better. That's another topic altogether though.
Maybe I need to explain what I meant by "preaching to the choir."
I've never known a choir that agreed 100% with the preacher, so even when you preach to the choir I assume you are hoping to make them see things a little differently.
When Adspar writes something I don't fully agree with, I have a better chance of mulling it over and changing my mind than if I read the same thing written by a staunch conservative.
Post a Comment