Ask Not What This Blog Can Do For You
Why do we blog? What are we trying to accomplish?
And why do we read and comment?
I’m not sure what all the main reasons are, honestly. These are my best guesses:
Why do we blog?
1. To change people’s minds through information or argument.
I don’t think this is anywhere close to the primary reason, but if you take a look at the relentless politeness of The Volokh Conspiracy you can see that they’re trying to move people to their libertarianish-conservative position.
Not everyone has the DRJ-like serenity when posting, and it’s not necessary to do that, but it probably helps.
Informational additions, like the host’s many posts on the LA Times’ bias are good ways to do this; having some expertise in one’s field can also help.
While this is a very good use of blogs, I’m pretty strongly convinced most people’s primary goal is different. That doesn’t make it wrong; people who are providing free content don’t have obligations to the content-reader.
2. To have a place to talk to like-thinking people.
Some very popular blogs make no effort whatsoever to engage people of different viewpoints; PZ Myers discusses his hard-left rationalist viewpoint by throwing f-bombs at those who disagree with him and saying he doesn’t trust any Christians. This isn’t likely to make friends, even though on science part of this scienceblog, Myers is just plain right. (Evolution happened. Ben Stein’s movie was wildly dishonest.)
Again, there’s nothing wrong with this per se. At some point, getting together with internet friends to bemoan the idiot lefties/righties/Muslims/left-handed freaks/non-virgins is a community-organizing method. It won’t bring new people in, but it may add some depth to the views of people who are already on your side. And you can even do this (if you’re boring) without ripping on the other side.
If you want to change people’s minds, though, this isn’t all that successful.
3. To show our erudition. There’s nothing wrong with expertise; I’ve had conversations with economists who know more than I do on the subject, and I’ve learned. People learn about the ins and outs of prosecution from me sometimes, and I’m convinced that really helps.
Of course, there are presentation methods; sometimes even pedantry has limits, and stops being productive. While I know what “erudition,” means, you pawns, and this makes me better than you, I might have used a substitute word.
4. To challenge ourselves, and feel an active part of the discussion.
If you allow comments, you’re engaging the populace in a discussion about ideas. Some members of the populace are irretrievable idiots, and this won’t help. But writing clear posts and engaging others in the marketplace of ideas can have a personal payoff. Sometimes, even, that payoff can be a recognition that one was mistaken about their original idea.
5. Because it’s fun.
And there’s nothing wrong with that. Not everything needs an explanation.
Why do we read?
1. To be entertained.
All those f-bombs can be entertaining.
2. To read things that agree with our pre-existing views.
I’m absolutely convinced that these two things are what draw people to most blogs. Learning isn’t key; confirmation bias is key. I admire folks like aphrael or SEK who post or drop by even though they disagree with the general tenor of this blog, but they’re rare.
It’s vital to get your information from other sources than, say, Drudge and Fox News if you’re on the right. I talked to a politically knowledgeable conservative site-surfer who never heard about the lost pallets of money in Iraq. Lost pallets of money are new, folks, and you’ve got to get knowledge from sources that don’t agree with your worldview. If you think the budget inflation of the Bush administration is the Democrats’ fault, there’s no saving you.
3. To be informed.
Scott Jacobs post on Carleton College’s CF fundraiser was fascinating, and I didn’t know the glitch in the election law that aphrael pointed out. I love posts like this, which give both some information I didn’t know and have a take on this information.
I think most of the blogosphere only wants information that supports their pre-existing views, though. That’s because the blogosphere is part of humanity, and humans generally only wants information that supports their pre-existing views; confirmation bias is strong in almost everyone.
4. To challenge ourselves.
Hey, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I don’t know something. People read and comment to engage in the discussion and challenge. Mostly, again, people read to hear people who agree with them.
Anyone have other reasons or theories for the popularity of blogs and blogging? Anyone think I’ve gone seriously awry in my analysis?
–JRM
I like posts like this that make me think about what I think. I probably blog because of a combination of 2 and 4, although in my case I want “To have a place to talk to non-like-thinking people.” I like living in a town where most people share my values but I go online because I also enjoy talking to people with other views. And I like Patterico’s website because he cultivates a respectful discussion with people of different views.
Comment by DRJ — 11/30/2008 @ 11:49 am
JRM – Your analysis is great, but I would argue one point. It would be tempting to think that there were ‘sides’ represented that one could take and always be in agreement, confirming one’s beliefs. The problem is that it’s simply not true that humans are divided into such distinct groupings. I don’t know where to go to on the net that will always confirm my pre-existing views.
What makes me appreciate this blog and PP’s is the fact that I have sometimes been in agreement with aphrael, and disagreement with nk or Scott Jacobs. The quality of the commenters here (when the trolls are removed) is such that anyone truly wishing to communicate and learn finds it difficult to fall into the lazy assumptions that beget the notion of a ‘side’.
Comment by Apogee — 11/30/2008 @ 2:40 pm
Apogee:
I agree that there are differences, but a lot of people view this as a football game. Look at the reaction to Patterico’s post on Prop 8 and his post that Obama wasn’t the worst human being ever. It was not just that he was mistaken, but that he was dishonest and evil and betraying his team.
I expected that, but the degree of the fury was rather spectacular. People quit reading because of it (or at least said they would.)
Not everyone believes that people who disagree with them are evil and stupid, but some degree of confirmation bias affects almost everyone.
I think most of America wants a better America, but views getting there in different ways.
–JRM
Comment by JRM — 11/30/2008 @ 2:48 pm
JRM – I disagree with you, but I’m willing to let it go, because I know that, deep down, you’re evil and stupid.
I agree that most Americans want a better America, but I think they aren’t challenged enough to discover for themselves what makes that possible, either in the education system, the media, or socially. This is the poison that is Political Correctness. PC is the single greatest threat to civilization in the history of Man, because it censors opposing thought, rather than answering it. Which forms the basis of my contention that many Americans haven’t been exposed to the ideas that would be needed to form diverse views of how to get to a better America.
What we see presented as ‘vigorous debate’ is actually a censoring contest, using numbers, noise, physical intimidation, social pressure or cherrypicked authority to present one agenda as ‘obvious truth’ while simultaneously actively suppressing any and all dissent to such agenda.
The effect of this is to present a football game, on every channel, regardless of what anyone wants to watch. After enough time has passed, football is all anyone knows. Sites like these are an antidote to that line of thought. This is why I fully support the banning of trolls – not people who disagree, but people who come here to play football. There are plenty of football sites, this site is about ideas, not winning at any cost. It may not be the trolls’ fault that they are programmed for football, but their presence prevents moving away from that brainwashed view.
For me, this is why blogging and commenting are important. Like the characters in Logan’s Run, readers venturing outside the stadium might discover a third way of thinking – one that holds disdain for the ‘sides’, and prefers the battle of ideas.
Comment by Apogee — 11/30/2008 @ 3:39 pm
JRM,
The reaction to Patterico’s post that Obama is a decent guy is one of the reasons I like the internet — because the responses typically are the unvarnished truth of how we really feel about topics. I’m not sure that’s true in “real life.”
Comment by DRJ — 11/30/2008 @ 5:06 pm
JRM very insightful post. For me it’s a little of everything. But what I really like is being able to say what I think and not having to dress it up for “polite” society. We’re still screwed!
Comment by J. Raymond Wright — 12/1/2008 @ 5:52 pm
Great post, although I do not find f-bombs as entertaining as other far more colorful ad hominems I have seen.
Blogging has vastly improved my ability to cogently argue my positions. I can anticipate the counter arguments (watch for the inevitable straw men, for instance) and more easily defend them.
Comment by Amphipolis — 12/2/2008 @ 9:19 am