The Cage Match of Ideas

Two Falls and a Submission

Polymathic Being has posted about being triggered. Michael uses the metaphor of Mixed Martial Arts to frame how we should treat ideas. He favors Mixed Mental Arts (“Grappling with complex problems in the octagon of life”) over Idea Sex (“Leaving your echo chamber and respecting people who think different is how you get ahead”). As you know, I have my own metaphorical framework for exploring ideas but lets put that to one side.

Now I am not one for being triggered. I think it is important to explore ideas that you are not entirely comfortable with. However my response to Michael is that the metaphor of combat seems to be the dominant metaphor in idea exploration. The focus on debates where you either win or lose. The clip videos in which X DESTROYS Y. We have so much combat going. Perhaps we should make love not war.

However neither the combat ring nor the boudoir are the metaphor most frequently used. Instead it is the Marketplace of Ideas that is rolled out. I hadn’t really looked into the origin of this phrase. It emerged in American Jurisprudence over the course of the 20th century in debates about free speech and the first amendment. Given that the business of America is business, it is unsurprising that the main frame of reference for Americans is a commercial one. What is often forgotten is that modern markets (both physical and financial) require regulation. Are the goods being sold safe or accurately described? Do people pay what they are owed?

However, as Liza Herzog outlines, earlier writers on liberty had a view more akin to Polymathic Being: “The associations evoked by Milton and Mill are those of competition in battlefields or sporting contests rather than marketplaces”

With the proviso “It is crucial, however, to read the metaphor with precision: it is meant to be a battle of ideas, not of individuals.”

The problem that we have is that individuals are almost inseparable from their ideas. If someone disagrees with us then we must DESTROY them. We treat sparring partners as though we are in a fight to the death. What we end up with is less a tournament than a bar fight.

We need to explore other metaphors of idea exploration:

• Ideas as bodies which we examine and dissect for display.

• Ideas as gardens that we plant and prune and grow.

• Ideas as steps in a dance.

• Ideas as food that we prepare and combine and cook. What works well together and what doesn’t?

• And, of course, ideas as wines to be tasted.

“Given this pluralism of values and given the plurality of settings in which speech takes place, we should not expect a one-size-fits-all solution.”

So by all means “give and take punches like a champ”. But don’t think that’s the only way to explore ideas and realize that some people are put off by the machismo of this approach.

BTW one of my favorite questions is: “What are you least sure of?”

It came to mind when dealing with someone who was insistent about their position being correct. It got boring. I’m not interested in what you are most sure of. Now some people are sure of everything. But that just means that they get to be a ballache to interact with. They also very rarely ask you open-ended, inquiring questions (rather than lawyerly reposts). Why would they when they know everything already? As Theodore Zeldin said: “The kind of conversation I like is one in which you are prepared to emerge a slightly different person.”