Offend in every way ...

I've been writing on my next large blog post ("The Cyborg Myth") for weeks now, and I'm thinking: this is turning (once again) into a fully fledged philosophical argument, almost an academic paper (just without the hassle of the peer-review process). 

Is this really the point of having a blog? I don't know. Maybe I have to let go of my cherished ideas that each post here must be a long, polished argument.

So, here is my resolution for the coming months: I'll post more frequently, but in less stringent and exhaustive form. 

And here is where it starts: a spontaneous little rant about honesty, integrity, and civility in academic (and social-media) discourse.

Enjoy!

---

Online discussions about scientific concepts often bring out something that also runs deep in academia, but usually remains outside the spotlight of public discourse: the personal attachment of people to their ideas.

Max Planck already said: science progresses one funeral at a time. What he meant: untenable ideas only go away once their proponents die. Rarely are they actually refuted by rational argument or even pragmatist considerations such as their usefulness.

How often do I criticize some concept or other, and then some random person on social media will say "but I like this concept."

First of all: really, why on Earth should I care about what concepts you like!? Have you ever asked yourself that? I want concepts to do scientific work. Especially if they are concerned with questions that I am studying. If a concept becomes useless or misleading, why should anyone care that you like that concept!?

Beats me.

Second, why are people then offended when I point out that they are not engaging in a scientific argument, but just stating an unqualified opinion? It's just what it is. We all do it, more or less frequently. But don't be a snowflake about it when somebody exposes you doing it.

I always tell my students: this classroom is a safe space for you as a person, but it is not a safe space for your stupidity.

We are all stupid. Let's have a laugh about it, appreciate it, and then move on. That's the ideal.

Limited beings in a large world, we'd better learn to move beyond our current limitations. The kind of fragile narcissism that comes with having to abandon a cherished idea or theory stands very much in the way of this.

We live in demented times, because everybody feels entitled to their opinion.

Yes, you are entitled. And so am I to tell you it's a stupid opinion. We need more honesty, more integrity, not fake back rubs when somebody holds on to ideas that are useless or plain bad.

That's not mean, it's tough love: you tell your friends when they are about to do something stupid. Otherwise you are not a friend, but a suck-up.

Academia, unlike social media, has rules of conduct for a reason. We deal in arguments, not personal insults. Or so the story goes. Yet, many arguments are suppressed not because they are wrong, but because they offend someone. Usually someone with seniority and power. This is a blatant abuse of academic discussion rules. It's always been.

Believe me: I know. I literally got fired from my last academic position, 10 years ago, because my arguments offended a fragile narcissist (who happened to be my boss). And I recently got removed from contributing to a special issue for offending one of the other contributors. Yes, I called their output "self-serving bullshit" (and I will do that again) because, demonstrably, it is. It needs to be pointed out. Otherwise, the bullshit walks. And we'll drown in it eventually.

That's not progress, but the opposite.

Civility is good. But being offended is now used as a weapon to silence critics. All over the place.

If it is arguments that offend you (and I used "bullshit" in its technical sense just now, as part of a philosophical argument), then go and suck it up, buttercup. In this case, I really don't care about your feelings. Learn to accept criticism, even if you find it rude, and metabolize it. Turn your anger into creativity. But stop killing those that criticize you.

When judging behavior, we put far too much weight on politeness, and far too little on integrity, when it is the latter that counts most these days, because it is so rare. If somebody dismisses a good argument because its proponent was rude, don't take them seriously. Examine the reasons, even those that make the critic be rude in the first place. There are many reasons to be angry, especially with those narcissists we put in charge across society. They're failing us in every possible way.

Of course: try to stay civil. But we don't need civility porn, when those being criticized really deserve what's coming to them.

When all that counts is looking good in public, then maybe looking human for a change should be appreciated over all those empty hulls that manage to stay in role, to project their radiating persona, all of the time. These kinds of people, more likely than not, are narcissists, and are vicious and destructive behind the scenes. They need to be unmasked.

Of course, not everybody emotionally attached to an idea is a narcissist. But even if you aren't, it's a healthy exercise to question your concepts and assumptions, especially now that our old ideas are clearly failing us.

It's not surprising that this is hard for most of us. Still, just give it a try. Your annoyance may be a sign that you actually have your own doubts about a certain idea. And by changing your mind, you also demonstrate you're not a narcissist. Two birds, one stone.

What all this takes is acceptance of a kind of vulnerability that is unlike all the emotional drama we see staged on public platforms. To be vulnerable means to look ugly. To look bad. Not in control. To look human. Every once in a while.

Try it.

We'll all be better off if we relearn that. After the anger and annoyance we can laugh at our stupidity. Come down from your high horse. Life is not that kind of performance. Restoring a culture where we could have honest arguments again, even if they hurt in the moment, and even if we can't resolve them, work together. That is an aim worth fighting for.

As humanity, we need to take a long hard look at ourselves right now. And this starts with yourself, I'd say. Let cherished ideas die. And let other people help you do that. Because, who knows, they really see things you don't, and they have a reason to be angry with you, even if you have no (obvious) bad intentions.

So: academics should indeed focus on arguments. But if some of us behave in ways that are no longer compatible with the search for truth, then arguments about personal motives also need to be heard. Science is done by people, whose ideas cannot be separated from their personal stories, for good or for bad.

This is what it is. We're all human. The more honest we are about it again, the more clearly we will see the problems that actually ail us. And the more starkly the narcissists will be exposed.

---

---

We need to collaborate with people that annoy us. It's not just a fact of life, but maybe even a good thing, at least in some situations. Diversity can be productive, after all, even if it isn't the kind of diversity we appreciate.

To learn how to co-create with such diverse groups of people, join one of our workshops with The Perspective Studio, or contact us for a free consulting session.