They have come out of the woodwork lately, I don't know why.
I have to say ever since starting grad school I've always been on the edge of quitting blogging. When I get comment sections full of noise I feel even more compelled to. I hesitate to even write up a post when trolling is high, which means I don't post unless I'm mad about something and that makes the trolling even more likely.
What do non-trolls - people that maybe haven't commented for a while - like seeing posts about?
I feel in despearte need of a virtuous circle working the other way on this blog.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
hey Daniel,
ReplyDeleteJust wondering if you regard me as a troll as well.
Daniel, I was wondering the same thing about "The Narrator." I don't see him as a troll at all, but as someone who disagrees with you a lot. How do you see him?
DeleteThere's no need to name specific commenters, I don't think. I feel like the Narrator has lately said his piece (a lot) without digesting much of mine, but I haven't made up a mental list of trolls and non-trolls.
DeleteDavid, you always have interesting things for me to link to and you seem to check in here at least semi-regularly. What do you think is the highest value added sort of post at Facts and Other Stubborn Things?
DK wrote: "There's no need to name specific commenters, I don't think. I feel like the Narrator has lately said his piece (a lot) without digesting much of mine, but I haven't made up a mental list of trolls and non-trolls."
DeleteWell, there may be no need to name specific commenters, but I for one would find it quite helpful if you did and I guess also kind of unfair if you didn't. You once again use strong words to characterize people as ('trolls') but then you leave that accusation sort of hanging in the air, not making it specific so that it sort of 'hangs over' a bunch of people who then don't know whether you think it applies to them or not and hence whether there is a need or whether it makes sense for them to explain or defend themselves or not
(and with that I guess also whether your use of the term 'troll' is fair and/or a case of "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.")
---
As to "I feel like the Narrator has lately said his piece (a lot) without digesting much of mine"
I simply don't know what you mean by this. It seems very vague and so it is hard for me to determine what exactly the criterion is, whether it makes sense, whether it is true of me and whether you are using it in a fair way (e.g. using a criterion to judge some people but not using the same criteria to judge other people, or interpreting the criterion a certain way when it comes to some people and in a different way when it comes to other people).
To be sure, I think in almost every single comment I have made I have provided (almost nothing but) arguments, and challenged other people's arguments by pointing out possible flaws. I think I have been reasonable and analytical (I did permit myself that 'hitting it out the park' post of course) and have by no means conducted myself with less intellectual integrity than you have.
This really has nothing to do with the post, Narrator.
DeleteBelieve it or not, I did not write this post in the hope that we could all talk about you in the comment thread.
And to be sure, and I think it is only fair for me to be explicit about this: I actually think you have conducted yourself with less intellectual integrity than you think you have, and I think that I have demonstrated that in quite a number of discussions over the past couple of weeks (and I'd be happy to go over some of them again in order to make my case very explicitly so that, should you be so inclined, you can take another look and determine whether there is something to it or not).
DeleteAnd I think that my (and others') pointing out this kind of behavior (in an analytical way with actual arguments and analysis that cannot easily be dismissed) is the primary reason that you feel upset, whether you are consciously aware that it is or not.
I think this all is too bad. What initially attracted me to your blog was that you were critical of Austrian Economics and libertarianism and that you were being so in an intelligent and informed way, and that you were making many good points that undermine core Austrian and/or libertarian beliefs that they might get away with when talking amongst themselves but that become much more problematic when confreonted with an intelligent and informed critic such as yourself. This I found very interesting and fruitful to experience.
As you know though, I had some serious issues with how you acted in the Bob Murphy - David Henderson bet issue, both moral (I thought you were being consistently more generous to e.g. krugman's side than to Murphy's side) and intellectual (it was baffling to me that you couldn't understand the point Murphy (and I) made to you about how the fact that Henderson is also an 'austerian' undermines DeLong's and Krugman's conclusion about Murphy's losing the bet somehow demonstrating that DeLong and Krugman were right about their general non-austerity framework) issues.
In your writings you have a very breezy, confident tone and in a way this is very appealing and compelling: it makes it seem as if you are writing from a posititon of generally more insight and knowledge than tyhe people you engage with. And this is quite persuasive.
But when with the Murphy-Henderson bet I noticed a discrepancy between your casual confident tone and the actual quality of your arguments I decided I'd start to follow your blog more closely than I had and actually engage in discussions. And then quickly I noticed that the breezy, confident (and often sniping) tone really is not much more than that: a tone. And that the quality of your arguments is often lacking. And that you regularly use harsh words to criticize other people - even when a closer analysis of the arguments demonstrates that this may not be fair (e.g. in the case of Boudreaux) - while becoming angry and defensive when other people use harsh words to describe what you are doing, even when as far as I can see those people (incl. myself) have at least as solid a case for their harsh words for you as you do for your harsh words at others.
Anyway, again, I would be more than willing to re-state the examples I have given in the past couple of weeks in a more explicit and structured way so that you can see whether there is something to them.
DeleteIn another comment you wrote: "I'm pissed at the suggestion that what I'm doing isn't above board or honest - not that what I'm saying is wrong."
I understand that. The thing is, I think and other people think as well that at least on some occasions there are good reasons for saying that what you're doing isn't above board or honest.
This is not a charge that I would use lightly, for example, but from what I've seen from you in the past couple of weeks, I simply think it's true. I mean, you're not the worst in this respect by any stretch but you're clearly not the best either (Bob Murphy is!).
I understand that you don't like to hear that, but I'd be lying if I didn't think it were true. And again, you don't seem to have a lot of problems with accusing other people of intellectually dishonest behavior. So why is it okay for you to charge other people with that but not for other peoiple to charge you with it, if their case seems to be at least as strong as yours? Because it isn't true? Again, I think it is and I think that I've provided plenty of arguments in my posts in the past couple of weeks that substantiate that belief.
And I think it would really help you if you become a bit more open to the possibility that you may not be as unbiased and fair-minded as you think you are. In a way there is little to lose in such a process of self-analysis and much to gain. It's not easy though.
Feynman's remark is very apt: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
re: "The thing is, I think and other people think as well that at least on some occasions there are good reasons for saying that what you're doing isn't above board or honest[...] This is not a charge that I would use lightly, for example, but from what I've seen from you in the past couple of weeks, I simply think it's true[...] I understand that you don't like to hear that, but I'd be lying if I didn't think it were true."
DeleteI will leave it at this - nobody who fails to respect me should expect any respect from me. These sorts of discourses rely on mutual respect.
On the Murphy/Henderson. I went over several times with you that I did understand your point, which suggested to me you might not have been getting mine.
DeleteAnyway, I certainly don't consider your alternative view on that a sign that you're somehow lacking in honesty.
DeleteIf you have to ask..
DeleteHi Mr. Kuehn! This is my first time on the internet! I come from Nigeria! I am very happy to read this high-quality blog, and I assure you that I will never troll it no matter what!
ReplyDeleteIf you are interested, I could put you in the way of a transaction to vield £10,000,000 pounds recently reacquired from Al Qaead in Mail. In return, all I ask that you do is to read and blog your views about Uneasy Money's recent post on whether and to what extent Hawtrey actually grasped in the 1920s what was to become the Keynesian multiplier.
Abū Zayd ‘Abdu r-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad bin Khaldūn Al-Ḥaḍrami
This is either the most amazing fake-spam I've ever seen or the most amazing spam I've ever seen. I don't know which.
DeleteViews one disagrees with does not equal trolling. Trolling is behavior specifically meant to elicit an emotional response where that strategy is apparent to your average reader.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, economics is an incredibly politicized discipline; expect for there to be a bunch of emotionally laden rhetoric as a result.
Anyway, sounds like a glaring first world problem to me. Indeed, if you stopped blogging three months you'd ask yourself why you were blogging in the first place! Then again, I am sure that I have no need to tell you that.
DeleteLSB, I am lucky enough to live in the first world and therefore lucky enough to have first world problems.
DeleteThis isn't even that. This is not a problem at all.
This is me asking what people like to read here because the comment sections make me want to post less than they did, say, a month ago. I enjoy posting what people enjoy reading.
Most of what you write is well outside of my wheelhouse, so that's all I can say about that.
DeleteIf you mean drones, most any commentary in the blogosphere that is cited here is outside the person's wheelhouse (if by that you just mean their career interests). I've stuck to substantive points on the drone thing which is a good thing to do when you're outside of your wheelhouse.
DeleteWhat is not generally a good idea is to associate some kind of maliciousness or lack of concern for the law or humanity to people that disagree with you.
I sympathize with both Daniel and commentators here. I think what Daniel has in mind is to ask people to approach his posts with better faith.
ReplyDeleteAn old, very high value commenter. What do you like to read here? I need to get to your two recent posts on inequality and on Garrison, btw.
DeleteI enjoy all your posts! (The technical stuff -- like your work on labor theory -- sometimes goes over my head, but I enjoy the challenge.)
DeleteDaniel I like your blog and I usually agree with you but I really think you are being way too thin skinned here. These kind of debates make the blog more interesting. I, for one, don't want to see it become an echo chamber.
ReplyDeleteGreg G
They may make it interesting for you, but it's just a drudgery for me. It usually takes things far afield from anything that I'm trying to talk about.
DeleteWayne struck a very specific nerve, if that's what you're refering to.
Dan,
DeleteI did not mean to strike a nerve. I was not trying to troll you and I especially wasn't trying to make you think you should quit blogging. I read your blog regularly because I enjoy 90% of your posts. So I would be sad to see you go.
Sorry for making you upset.
Look on the bright side. Having trolls means you're hitting a nerve and making an impact. Most blogs don't even mature to the point of getting trolled.
ReplyDeleteGenerally, the longer a chain of 'blog comments on blog' posts go, the less substance you wring out of the topic. No offense, but Kuehn on [a bunch of people] on Sachs on Krugman probably wasn't promising from the start.
ReplyDeleteAnd as a consumer of this blog, I think you (like many academics) write much better on topics you have a research interest in. I recall thinking your series of min wage posts was quite good, as were some of your posts this year about feminist/gender analysis + econ.
DeleteI agree; write about what you know about.
DeleteI'd suggest either moderating your comments or just trying not to engage with people who are incapable of arguing without accusations of bad faith. Of course if either of those are too hard for whatever reason I'd just stop blogging. Hope I'm not part of the *general* problem even though I haven't commented much of late..
ReplyDeleteDaniel, I'm sorry if I contributed to this feeling of yours. But in case youre interested in what I enjoy with blogs in general and your in particular, here goes. I personally prefer blogs that take a more deliberative approach. Here's what I mean re: moral-political issues. The blogger says something like:
ReplyDelete"Look at this story/claim. I'm concerned about x, y, z. Here's why. My personal worldview is committed to a, b, c (although I recognize that a, b, c is subject to reasonable disagreement). I think that x, y, z undermine or are in tension with a, b, c (or a, b, c, undermine the plausibility of x, y, z)."
And there is an implicit "what do you all think?" Commenters then add what they think, you reply, etc. Here's a second approach:
"I have the following moral/political/philosophical worldview: a, b, c are correct. Here's why ... And I think a, b, c imply l, m , n, o ... Thus, we should be committed to l, m, n, o."
And there's an implicit "what do you guys think? You can replace the moral/political stuff with economic theory/research/claims. The approach that I am not a big fan of, which is unfortunately the more popular approach of many bloggers, is something like:
"Look at this story. This guy says x, y, z. But x, y, z are obviously stupid. Also, a, b, c!!"
Basically, my ideal blogging scenario is a collegial working-out of ideas. That is what initially attracted me to your blogging; it seemed like you were interested in having this type of dynamic discussion. I recognize that I violate my own prescriptions, but none of us are in full compliance with our own ideals, and I try my best not to violate them.
I think you are at your best when directly criticising/responding to others, certainly suits the style of this blog.
ReplyDeleteJust block annoying commenters. Use your own, arbitrary criteria, you aren't answerable to anyone. Be ruthless. That's been my policy and I can honestly say my comments sections are all the better for it.
As a non-economist, much of what you write about is outside of my research interests. Love cats, food, and stats though :)
ReplyDeleteDaniel, I seldom comment, but am pleased with the number of times you reply when I do. I generally agree with your thoughts, and only comment when our perspectives differ. And then only because I assume there is something I'm missing.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a big fan of drone posts ... because I agree with your thoughts on that subject. I'd like to see more on the causes/drivers of inequality (for others, I mean economic drivers backed by data, not political opinions backed by passion).