My take on this is that ideas, much like genes, are antagonistic by nature. They seek domination over other ideas and, ultimately, survival (as in passing on to the next host). The validity of an idea is measured on how well it resonates with other people or, to put it in another way, how well it describes their perceived reality.
For that fact, solely “inner” debating is not sustainable long-term but is crucial for eliminating inherently bad ideas and fortifying the good ones. The end goal, though, remains the same: put them out in public and see how well they hold together.
But I would disagree that “the validity of an idea is measured on how well it resonates with other people” since people are configured, not to look for truth but for what is convenient. In other words, if it benefits survival we will take it even if it’s wrong. Superstition might have been beneficial in the short term for an individual since it would explain an event but terrible for collective knowledge and error correction. The “resonates with other people” is just a filter that we partly rely on for feedback and self-correction. It doesn’t make it valid on its own.
Eliminating bad ideas is crucial, I agree. But I think this can be done better with writing since that is the ultimate exercise for clear-thinkingness. And it fosters a “saner” way of thinking, probably the only sustainable one in the long run.
Great read, John.
My take on this is that ideas, much like genes, are antagonistic by nature. They seek domination over other ideas and, ultimately, survival (as in passing on to the next host). The validity of an idea is measured on how well it resonates with other people or, to put it in another way, how well it describes their perceived reality.
For that fact, solely “inner” debating is not sustainable long-term but is crucial for eliminating inherently bad ideas and fortifying the good ones. The end goal, though, remains the same: put them out in public and see how well they hold together.
Sure thing. Ideas pretty much work as you described(I wrote about it here https://curiositysink.substack.com/p/into-the-infinite-loop-of-ideas)
But I would disagree that “the validity of an idea is measured on how well it resonates with other people” since people are configured, not to look for truth but for what is convenient. In other words, if it benefits survival we will take it even if it’s wrong. Superstition might have been beneficial in the short term for an individual since it would explain an event but terrible for collective knowledge and error correction. The “resonates with other people” is just a filter that we partly rely on for feedback and self-correction. It doesn’t make it valid on its own.
Eliminating bad ideas is crucial, I agree. But I think this can be done better with writing since that is the ultimate exercise for clear-thinkingness. And it fosters a “saner” way of thinking, probably the only sustainable one in the long run.