Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

Why go around the barn, instead of the simple idea that it's all about who gets to be heard?
(though that's a rhetorical question)

"Conversation" is an appealing metaphor in part because it implies equal power, whereas the unpleasant reality is a small number of influential pontificators.

Or, as the phrase goes: "'Shut up', he explained."

Actually, Seth, isn't the pleasant reality a small number of influential pontificators and an unimaginably large number of people talking with one another? Why does the head of the curve (you know which one I mean, the power law distribution) strike you as the only part of the curve worth noticing? The area under the long tail is larger than the area under the head. Yet you talk as if it doesn't exist or is of no importance. Is that because you think wool-brained hippies like me need to be reminded of the head, or because for some reason that I don't yet see the tail actually isn't important socially, sociologically, politically, etc. Or some other reason...?

FWIW, I'm pretty sure "'Shut up,' he explained" - one of my favorite lines - comes from Ring Lardner, who, in another half generation, will be a completely forgotten author :(

But David, your post, and others noted, is about an aspect of the structure of the curve and a benefit of being near the top - it's Big Heads noting that they (or other members of the chattering class) have risen to a point on the curve where they are effectively heard, so they can't be dismissed with impunity by higher-ups. What's the "lesson" in that, besides rank-has-its-privileges? (or maybe it's about reigning in hell rather than serving in heaven)

Whatever the importance of the Long Tale (:-)), in various senses, that's not what the above is concerned with. A billion Chinese exist too, but I don't talk about them either. Even though there's far more of them than professional pundits.

I'm commenting because the fundamental experience of those of us down on the bottom is that the Big Head almost *always* "gets to end the argument" with anyone of lesser power. So talking about it as "explorations, not title fight", can be extremely irritating to people who have taken a lot of slams.

Seth, can you point to an example of a Big Head ending an argument? I don't mean this as a challenge but so I understand your point.

Self-provingly (:-)), I have to respond very carefully to that one. Do you want an example of a Big Head being abusive to someone, and ignoring contrary reactions? I hope I don't have to name anyone.

The basic issue is simple - who gets to define when to "move on to something else"? If a Big Head wants to keep kicking a topic - or a person - it has much more of an impact than a blogger almost nobody reads. Who gets to say "It's over", and who gets to reply "It's not over till *I* say it's over!"? It sure isn't everyone (in a meaningful sense).

I hope the implications of this can be taken as a given in disputes between people with audiences which vary by two or three *orders of magnitude*.

Thanks. That's just the sort of answer I was looking for.

So, the Big Head gets to decide to stop talking about an issue, and probably gives himself/herself the last word, at least on the BH's site. But just as bloggers can continue the topic hen the MSM close a topic within their pages, so can less-read bloggers continue the conversation off the BH site. This seems to me to be very different than the way it used to be when we only had MSM; when they declared a discussion closed, there weren't any (well, few) public spaces where we could continue it. Now there are, no matter how closed the MSM or the BHs would like a topic to be.

Which I think brings us back to the beginning. You find that unsatisfying because Little Heads are little, and then I say that the total readership of LHs is greater than the readership of BHs, and then you say...and then I say... Overall, you think I underestimate the importance of the BHs and I think you underestimate the importance of the LHs.

Seth, how do you and I make progress with this topic?

My fundamental thesis is that the following is false: "there weren't any (well, few) public spaces where we could continue it. Now there are, no matter how closed the MSM or the BHs would like a topic to be."

This is mathematically incorrect, in my view. There has been a *reshuffling* and much fighting among the top slots. But none of that matters much outside the clubby circles of a very tiny insider group.

To me, the proofs of this are abundant. The exponential nature of the attention curve (per-topic). The fact that many of the high-attention bloggers *are* MSM people, or very close to it. The way that race and gender imbalance is arguably *worse* - that's *worse* - in the blogger distribution of power than the MSM .

Moreover, I find the rebuttals weak and patronizing - I parody them as "You can rant on a streetcorner! And think of it, the population of an *entire* *city* might potentially come by and hear you ranting. And maybe you *like* ranting on a streetcorner. You wouldn't be disrespecting those wonderful people who are happy to rant on a streetcorner?"

Fundamentally, the rebuttals usually make either errors of probability ("If all the Chinese, err, Long-Tailers, jumped at once, they could cause an earthquake") or are just question-ducking.

Of course, I've gone over this before - maybe ad nauseum.

As you absolutely know, there's some basic philosophical problems with knowledge - there's Creationists, and people who believe their God tells them to be a bomber, and lobbyists for the tobacco industry, etc. Some gulfs are simply not going to be bridged.

A scientific way of analyzing things is to break ideas down into testable components, ones which can be falsified. And - critically - to respect the outcome of the tests! (obviously, this is a complex process, many books are written on it).

That's the way, in theory progress would be made. But in practice ... let's say I know the problems :-(

Sure, we are not going to settle our arguments in theory. That has always been true.

Where it makes a difference is when a decision needs to be made and action needs to be taken in the real world. People decide to take some action, and they organize to get it done. People will decide to support a candidate; and they will organize, donate and vote for that candidate. People decide to support a position, and they organize and advocate accordingly.

The upfront debate hasn't brought everybody along, but enough people have gotten on the same page to get the thing done.