| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="ClassNotesJan24" |
|---|
|
|
<
< | As always, a work in progress.
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. |
>
> | "Moralists and philosophers in America are not obliged to conceal their opinions under the veil of allegory; but before they venture upon a harsh truth, they say: "We are aware that the people whom we are addressing are too superior to the weaknesses of human nature to lose the command of their temper for an instant. We should not hold this language if we were not speaking to men whom their virtues and their intelligence render more worthy of freedom than all the rest of the world." |
| | |
|
<
< | 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 most helpful. He sets an intellectual standard for the forum. |
>
> | "Freedom of opinion does not exist in America." -ADT |
| | |
|
<
< | Ideas that fall below his standard should not be censored, but spoken in a less costly forum. Clearly the TWiki is that forum. It's possible Eben intended it as that forum. If it was not so intended, 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. |
>
> | Some people feel that Eben's style of classroom critique suppresses free speech, scares it away. Personally, I disagree. The opportunity cost of free speech in a classroom is that everyone in the room—including the speaker—can't listen to anyone else. A teacher with scarce time ought to judge which of his students' ideas fall below his intellectual standard, and redirect those to a forum where they can be developed, at less cost, to meet that standard. |
| | |
|
<
< | 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). 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. TWiki has the potential to be our town-hall democracy. |
>
> | If Eben believes in open information, and this class is about challenging authority, why is the classroom so much more friendly to authority than to challenges? I might ask Eben, but I have a guess: the professor wants us to absorb his opinions ("listen"), so that we can only critique them later—i.e., after thinking—i.e., intelligently. He reserves the TWiki as our forum for that critique. Here I oblige. |
| | |
|
<
< | What should we do with that potential? MichaelBrown reminds me that Eben gave us a guiding principle—that TWiki helps him "evaluate contributions/participation to a degree." I suppose we might infer from that a second principle, that this is supposed to be some kind of learning tool. That's all we've got. The default is anarchy. It's only a democracy if we all agree to it. We're reenacting Dr. Zimbardo's experiment, and now we get to decide what sort of prisoners we'll be. |
>
> | 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, it's because we don't WANT to). 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. TWiki has the potential to be our town-hall democracy. |
| | |
|
<
< | I say the prisoners should take over this prison. For a few reasons. First of all, because we all believe in free speech. __. Second, for those of you who are concerned about grades, I've thought really hard about the rules of the game, and I think that's what we're supposed to do to win. |
>
> | How should we use that potential? |
| | |
|
<
< | AdamCarlis got us started on a Bill of Rights. |
>
> | MichaelBrown reminds me [which I deleted because it was responding to an older draft] that Eben gave us a guiding principle: that the TWiki helps him "evaluate contributions/participation to a degree." I suppose we might infer from this a second principle, that it is supposed to be some kind of learning tool. That's all we've got. Default to anarchy and the rule of the strongest, unless we all agree to be a democracy. We're reenacting Dr. Zimbardo's prison experiment, and now we get to decide what sort of prisoners we'll be. |
| | |
|
<
< | democracy by default, I believe we must protect our democracy. |
>
> | I say the prisoners should take over this prison. First of all, we all believe in free speech. It makes sense to deny it in class, but not here. Second, it's what Eben would do in our position. He didn't include the rules in the box, but neither does a Ouija Board. Both are remedies for denial; and you win at Ouija by making up the rules; the analogy extends to grades. And even if I'm wrong, and my made-up rules break the HIDDEN rules, we won't hang separately if we all agree to hang together: we're graded on a curve. |
| | |
|
<
< | 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, [ ...] |
>
> | So, join my revolution! We already have a Constitution. |
| | |
|
<
< | 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. |
>
> | We must protect free speech. |
| | |
|
<
< | 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? Either answer on TWiki and get Eben's response next Wednesday, or don't because you're afraid of the consequences: either way, we learn the answer experimentally.
-- AndrewGradman - 24 Jan 2008 |
>
> | Not by way of a rule, though. Free Speech is a social function.
AdamCarlis suggested some values. Fortunately, I don't think anyone's violated them yet. But I'd like to add: No Prior Restraint. That includes critiques that deter people from speaking freely. If suppressing those critiques advances free speech, then we should sacrifice a piece for the sake of the whole. |
| | |
|
>
> | In particular, our First Amendment should bar speech by Authority Figures that discourages posts by Inferiority Figures. 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 confuse their 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. |
| | |
|
>
> | I am thinking of yesterday's class. Eben—God I'm playing with fire, but I'd be a coward to use the third person—Eben, I am thinking particularly of Barb's post yesterday. I would have liked
Shall we defend free speech on our TWiki, from enemies foreign and domestic? Answer here, or don't answer at all: either will answer my question.
-- AndrewGradman - 24 Jan 2008 |
| | |
|
<
< | I don't know if I can assert that I see the TWiki as being designed for free speech. I don't remember Prof. Eben presenting it as being ofr that. If anything, I remember him discussing it as a manner to evaluate contributions/participation to a degree. Because of this element, I can see some people being very concerned about what they say, how they say it, how many times they contribute etc as opposed to a townsquare. I think the Bill of Rights is an interesting idea. I might just say I think the operating norms is more useful because a Bill of Rights implies there is an enforcement mechanism. However the problem with operating norms is that unless enough of us see them and agree to them, they may not work towards a useful purpose. Sadly as I write this I wouldn't want others not to speak freely, I just feel I'm being honest about how people interact. |
>
> | Eben, please don't deactivate my account. |
| | |
|
<
< | -- MichaelBrown - 25 Jan 2008
|
>
> | -- AndrewGradman - 25 Jan 2008
rms |