| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="ClassNotesJan24" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Comment freely, but please soften your critiques until I have removed this disclaimer. This is still a first draft, and I am still trying to make the words say what I MEAN. It should be ready by tomorrow morning. | >
> | I love how nothing we say in the classroom is immune to critique. Some people feel that critique suppresses free speech, scares it away. Yes, our class needs free speech: It improves our ideas, promotes democracy, dignifies the marginalized. | | | | |
<
< | I believe that whatever we choose to present in class, instead of on the TWiki, should be subject to vicious critique, by Eben or anyone. Some people assume that Eben's abrasive style is contrary to the values of Free Speech. Last week, in ClassNotes17Jan08, I expressed my view this way:
The professor believes in open information, and … this class is, after all, about challenging authority. I grant that Eben presents a difficult classroom environment for that. But I theorize that he asserts his opinions so strongly in class to force us to absorb them ("listen"), so that we can only critique them later—i.e., after thinking—i.e., intelligently. He reserved the TWiki as our forum for that critique. | >
> | But cowing critique is not censorship when it channels speech to a more thoughtful form and a less destructive forum. The opportunity cost of speaking in a classroom is that everyone in the room—including the speaker—can't listen to someone else. A teacher with scarce time ought to judge which of 50 students' ideas are less helpful than others', and discourage those until we improve them, for our own good and for everyone else's. It conditions us to respect the intellectual forum. | | | | |
<
< | The opportunity cost of speaking is hearing others, and we ought to expect people not to speak in class when it prevents the rest of us from hearing better ideas of other people. Eben deserves to judge which ideas are bad ones, in the context of his class. This holds us to a high intellectual standard. If we want to improve the world, we should be prepared to wield free speech against the free speech of other passionate intellectuals. Eben's rhetorical style prepares us to defend ourselves in that forum. That is why I enjoy confronting you—not just here, on the TWiki, where no one can shut me up, but in class, where I must measure my words against opportunity cost of other people's words. | >
> | For everything else, there's the TWiki. The TWiki removes the externality of speaking on listening. Ideas interact here more like J.S. Mill expected them to, more like particles in an ideal gas (i.e. here, when we don't listen, we don't WANT to). | | | | |
>
> | Last week, in ClassNotes17Jan08, I compared class to TWiki this way:
The professor believes in open information, and … this class is, after all, about challenging authority. I grant that Eben presents a difficult classroom environment for that. But I theorize that he asserts his opinions so strongly in class to force us to absorb them ("listen"), so that we can only critique them later—i.e., after thinking—i.e., intelligently. He reserved the TWiki as our forum for that critique. | | | | |
<
< | Begin Garbage | >
> | TWiki stands for town-hall democracy. We must protect our democracy. It's the best forum for us to hear each other, the safest forum for us to learn from each other, and the LAST asylum for free speech. I should thank AdamCarlis, then, for suggesting that we write a Bill of Rights. | | | | |
<
< | Free speech promotes our values: democracy, good ideas, dignity for the marginalized. But Free Speech itself can be a "prior restraint" on speech, functionally, when it deters people from speaking freely. If I may speak for those people (for people with more social awareness than me), the opinions of Authority Figures can deter us as much as the edicts of Public Authorities. Authority Figures can mobilize laughter, which is a kind of public force. And many of us were trained to respect teachers as Authority Figures. And many of us confuse descriptive statements for prescriptive ones, since that is what humans do. And many of us can't learn to think like lawyers by learning to argue like lawyers, because we who can't yet argue like lawyers will look stupid when we argue with those who can. | >
> | However, [*I need to figure out a middle section that has something to do with peer pressure. It's a work in progress, but that shouldn't stop you from commenting.*] Therefore, [ ...] | | | | |
<
< | More garbage: Words on the TWiki should not be subject to this constraint, because I think of the TWiki as our asylum That saddens me, and the TWiki is the best forum for us to hear each other, and the safest forum for us to learn from each other. None of us responded to Barb’s post online before Eben did in class. (Admittedly, her post went up just a few hours before class, so it's not like Eben pre-empted us: we were just lazy.) Eben responded generously, thoroughly, cogently. And, I imagine that Barb was looking for peer insight; perhaps that's why she raised the idea on the TWiki. Had she introduced her ideas by raising her hand in class, I worry that others may now feel uncomfortable responding—even here, on the TWiki, and not just to Barb but to others in the future. My own opinions are irrepressible, but What we say here, and what the professor says in class, is Free Speech. And we all agree that | >
> | If we can advance free speech by suppressing a little free speech, then we should sacrifice a piece for the sake of the whole. We all should critique the TWiki. But we should also shape those critiques to encourage responses, even if those responses can't survive anywhere—except the TWiki. | | | | |
<
< | End Garbage.
Maybe the values of free speech can be advanced by sacrificing a little free speech. Public speech conveys private values, and not all private speakers can be treated equally, even in the forum. Some private values are best understood by a limited audience. These ideas need to gestate there before they can be challenged publicly.
Eben, I am not saying that you, the teacher, should not critique the TWiki! The TWiki is a DMZ, not an insane asylum. We all should critique the TWiki. But we should also shape those critiques to encourage responses, even if those responses can't survive anywhere—except the TWiki.
What do you guys think—was the TWiki designed for free speech? If so, is its design successful, both internally and accounting for exogenous forces? Am I exaggerating the chilling effects of Free Speech by Authority Figures? If you won't risk your own hides to answer these questions, that's fine too: Say nothing until class next week, and we will learn the answer experimentally.
| >
> | What do you guys think—was the TWiki designed for free speech? If so, is its design successful, both internally and accounting for exogenous forces? If you won't risk your own hides to answer these questions here, that's fine too: Say nothing until class next week, and we will learn the answer experimentally.
| | | -- AndrewGradman - 24 Jan 2008 | |
>
> | | | | |
|