I sometimes get questions about the purpose of my blog, and also about the blog itself, such as why X is done instead of Y. This post is to answer these questions and to perhaps give you a better understanding of my blogging philosophy.
As with most things, the intents determine the characteristics. If I want to build a car that can go very fast, it will have to be aerodynamic. If I want to design a building to look modern, I would probably not include columns from classical Greece. Similarly, the intents of a blog will somewhat dictate its characteristics. By “characteristics,” I don’t mean the physical characteristics, like what font I use or where the widgets are placed—I’m not a graphic designer, and that is probably apparent from the elementary layout. Instead, what I mean by “characteristics” is the set of literary choices: Which topics do I write about? What tone/style/mood do I use? How much detail do I include? Should I avoid conflict or welcome it? And so on.
The purpose itself comes from my own values, experiences, and beliefs, and without going too much into detail, I’ve always been concerned with Truth. Sure, that sounds pretty cheesy, but one of the greatest lessons from history is that for vast amounts of time, whole civilizations were very confident in what they thought to be the truth, only to be proved wrong, time and time again, from factual truths like “Earth is flat” or “The world is about 6000 years old” to moral truths like “Slavery is okay” and “Women are inferior to men.” Each time, the people who first challenged these truths were brave individuals who stood up to society and were mocked and ridiculed, sometimes violently, for their beliefs. Such paradigm shifts are still happening today, within many beliefs in many countries. Hence, one of the major humanitarian imperatives of the 21st century is to be more open-minded than the past. Now, open-mindedness itself is a broad topic and has many questions (is rejecting a closed-minded worldview itself closed-minded?), but it really determines the purpose of this blog.
Primary intent: To get people to think in different ways.
With this directive in mind, it is probably much easier to see why I blog the way I blog. Here is a list of characteristics I came up with that are related to this objective:
1. (Try to) Write about interesting topics that someone would want to read. That is, if no one reads it, then it is pointless. In addition, I try to bring up unusual topics, because you probably already read about the usual topics elsewhere. Other times, I try to put an unusual twist on an otherwise normal topic. An example of this might be the previous post, which was on Internet trolling.
2. Be thought provoking. This is usually done by upfront making an unpopular or controversial claim. The religion and atheism posts are prime examples. To a lesser degree, so was the post against positive racism. These can sometimes provoke much more than just thought.
3. Use ethos and pathos, even when talking about things that fit under the realm of logos. This is especially difficult for me to do because I am a very logic-minded person to begin with, and furthermore, I generally treat arguments like mathematical proofs, which are not designed to be persuasive, but merely correct. On the other hand, I’m very aware that persuasion encompasses more than just proving you are correct, hence why I do try to include non-completely-logic-based rhetoric even in rational topics, like the rationality vs irrationality post.
4. Be very aware of cognitive biases and fallacies. As a counterpoint to #3, one benefit of being very logically minded is that it is easier to catch myself committing a logical fallacy or over/under-estimating something due to a cognitive bias. Of course, no one can be free of biases, but knowing what they are beforehand means you can work around them to some degree. Awareness and constant skepticism do help to construct a more accurate picture.
5. Avoid using mainstream arguments or sources, which are already familiar to everyone. Even though I consider my beliefs as moderately liberal, I rarely bring up many of the issues that liberals are typically concerned with. It is not because I don’t have views on those issues, but rather because I can’t contribute in those issues as much as someone else could. There is no value in my repeating what someone else said, especially if it is the consensus view. On the other hand, there is value in talking about what I am more knowledgeable in, rather than less. In addition, I have written posts that have criticized the typical liberal view on a few topics.
6. Avoid using authority. I don’t try to be an authority at X, and even when I start my job later this year, I doubt I will be writing any posts on quantitative trading. I talk about societal progress a lot, but I don’t pretend to be an expert on it. This is also part of the reason #5 exists: If I talk about a common issue that experts have exhaustively written about, you’re probably better off reading them. But on a very uncommon issue, I have more relative expertise since there is no authority.
7. Use generalist skills and areas of relative expertise. My general philosophy (no pun intended) is that I would rather know something about everything than everything about something. This is very easy to achieve today with the Internet literally at your fingertips. But using the information correctly and drawing the correct conclusions is the hard part, and it is not as easy as everyone thinks. This is where mathematical/statistical training really does help.
8. Pick topics that are not necessarily advanced, but look at them in a different way. Perhaps combine two simple or familiar topics together, like the victim blaming/religion post.
Overall, the objective of trying to get people to think in different ways is fairly successful. I post these on my Facebook
wall timeline, and sometimes full-fledged arguments occur. But argument is better than no argument, and it shows that people at least have to think about and reevaluate their beliefs, leaving them in a better position than when they started, regardless of which side they were on.