I think that Tyler has the better point regarding Twitter versus Google. Have you tried searching for any more openly polarized or politicized topic on Google (say, in the last year or so)?
My sense is that Google results are now heavily curated, with left-of-center sources strongly preferred and the more-coherent right-of-center sites almost entirely removed from results. I would often search for some phrase or topic I read at one or two removes from my usual sources, and Google would not find it, but competitors -- particularly DuckDuckGo and Bing -- would. Along the lines of "great source[s] of new information", I want to see different viewpoints, but Google gives almost an echo chamber of mainstream punditry. Because of that, I switched my desktop and mobile browsers to use DDG as more representative of the "old school" of Internet search engines.
As a concrete example, the first page of results for "Taiwan protests" provides much more ideological diversity with DDG than Google. Bing only gives five results on the first page, but the next page is comparable to DDG's first page. (This is not too surprising given that DDG uses Bing as one source.)
You write "He said that Latin American fiction still has some great writing style...." And I laugh at his nonsense. Most of what Tyler writes everywhere is nonsense. I say it's nonsense because I wouldn't waste time trying to find its meaning and arguing his point. Indeed, you will find a few people that spend over 10 minutes in finding meaning to Tyler's nonsense and some additional minutes arguing with him about it but soon they will forget it. You have known him for a long time but I doubt that today you'd claim to like a Tyler's idea enough to defend it publicly because you were able to find its meaning and implications.
Your conversation was about sources of information. I laugh at your point on Tyler's wife. Please, read again what you have written and talk to people who lived years in Russia or China about their connections there and what they can get from them today. When you talk about sources of information, it looks like you are lost about what you are looking for.
I also do not have a positive view of Twitter, overall. I remember during the whole Bari Weiss debacle at the NYT, she said "Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor." I worry that this is becoming true more generally: that private organizations and public institutions (including the federal government) are increasingly susceptible to the influence of Twitter mobs, as if it were representative of public opinion. This is not good, because Twitter does not reward nuance, complexity, or even complete sentences. It rewards the opposite, really: indignation, us vs them thinking, stridency, snark, stupidity, etc. It is more like a distillation of the formerly private thoughts output of the id of the types of people who spend too much time on Twitter. It's like Neitzche's herd mentality on steroids and with the blue checkmarks adding a hefty dose of self-righteousness to the mix.
To make matters worse, the "existential risk of ostracism" pathway you described that's been imprinted by evolution into our brains makes it difficult for anyone of any stripe or status to tolerate lots of people saying mean things about them online, and the result is our institutions keep caving in left and right to whichever group seems to be the most numerous and indignant at any particular moment. To the extent that I'm correct about this, it seems to me like Tyler's view that "it's better than Google for finding up to date info on many topics" seems to almost be in "the play was quite good though, eh, Mrs. Lincoln?" territory.
I just ran across VHS tape of presentation Tyler gave to high school students and teachers in I think 1984 on the national debate topic of federal employment policies. It's fascinating to watch and I try to digitize and share soon.
Thanks for the latest free-wheeling, stimulating live conversation. The general topic was information acquisition/assessment. I'm kicking myself for not asking Tyler the following question in the Q&A part:
'Re: Predictions about inflation in the USA. Arnold and you (Arnold) -- economists each -- have, at your fingertips, the same public information relevant to making predictions about inflation. You interpret the information differently. Can you pinpoint any differences in how you and Arnold weigh, assess, and/or aggregate information about prospects for inflation? Does the disagreement stem from disagreement about economics (theory)? Or from different approaches to information/evidence? Or from something else?'
I suspect Tyler does have especially good contacts in eastern Europe. But I would not be surprised if he has impressive connections in many other places also.
I think that Tyler has the better point regarding Twitter versus Google. Have you tried searching for any more openly polarized or politicized topic on Google (say, in the last year or so)?
My sense is that Google results are now heavily curated, with left-of-center sources strongly preferred and the more-coherent right-of-center sites almost entirely removed from results. I would often search for some phrase or topic I read at one or two removes from my usual sources, and Google would not find it, but competitors -- particularly DuckDuckGo and Bing -- would. Along the lines of "great source[s] of new information", I want to see different viewpoints, but Google gives almost an echo chamber of mainstream punditry. Because of that, I switched my desktop and mobile browsers to use DDG as more representative of the "old school" of Internet search engines.
As a concrete example, the first page of results for "Taiwan protests" provides much more ideological diversity with DDG than Google. Bing only gives five results on the first page, but the next page is comparable to DDG's first page. (This is not too surprising given that DDG uses Bing as one source.)
If you find useful lists you can search list:890093242342 "search term" and it will surface only results from that list.
You write "He said that Latin American fiction still has some great writing style...." And I laugh at his nonsense. Most of what Tyler writes everywhere is nonsense. I say it's nonsense because I wouldn't waste time trying to find its meaning and arguing his point. Indeed, you will find a few people that spend over 10 minutes in finding meaning to Tyler's nonsense and some additional minutes arguing with him about it but soon they will forget it. You have known him for a long time but I doubt that today you'd claim to like a Tyler's idea enough to defend it publicly because you were able to find its meaning and implications.
Your conversation was about sources of information. I laugh at your point on Tyler's wife. Please, read again what you have written and talk to people who lived years in Russia or China about their connections there and what they can get from them today. When you talk about sources of information, it looks like you are lost about what you are looking for.
I also do not have a positive view of Twitter, overall. I remember during the whole Bari Weiss debacle at the NYT, she said "Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor." I worry that this is becoming true more generally: that private organizations and public institutions (including the federal government) are increasingly susceptible to the influence of Twitter mobs, as if it were representative of public opinion. This is not good, because Twitter does not reward nuance, complexity, or even complete sentences. It rewards the opposite, really: indignation, us vs them thinking, stridency, snark, stupidity, etc. It is more like a distillation of the formerly private thoughts output of the id of the types of people who spend too much time on Twitter. It's like Neitzche's herd mentality on steroids and with the blue checkmarks adding a hefty dose of self-righteousness to the mix.
To make matters worse, the "existential risk of ostracism" pathway you described that's been imprinted by evolution into our brains makes it difficult for anyone of any stripe or status to tolerate lots of people saying mean things about them online, and the result is our institutions keep caving in left and right to whichever group seems to be the most numerous and indignant at any particular moment. To the extent that I'm correct about this, it seems to me like Tyler's view that "it's better than Google for finding up to date info on many topics" seems to almost be in "the play was quite good though, eh, Mrs. Lincoln?" territory.
I just ran across VHS tape of presentation Tyler gave to high school students and teachers in I think 1984 on the national debate topic of federal employment policies. It's fascinating to watch and I try to digitize and share soon.
Thanks for the latest free-wheeling, stimulating live conversation. The general topic was information acquisition/assessment. I'm kicking myself for not asking Tyler the following question in the Q&A part:
'Re: Predictions about inflation in the USA. Arnold and you (Arnold) -- economists each -- have, at your fingertips, the same public information relevant to making predictions about inflation. You interpret the information differently. Can you pinpoint any differences in how you and Arnold weigh, assess, and/or aggregate information about prospects for inflation? Does the disagreement stem from disagreement about economics (theory)? Or from different approaches to information/evidence? Or from something else?'
I suspect Tyler does have especially good contacts in eastern Europe. But I would not be surprised if he has impressive connections in many other places also.
"Basically no one cares what you have to say" oh the irony!
Yes; also: never post comments to blog posts.