Note: I am doing the opposite of what I did when I wrote daily about the virus crisis. I am stepping back and looking more deeply at issues of epistemology and institutional decay. Not quite twenty years ago, I wrote about a David Brin essay.

David Brin is a physicist, science fiction writer, and under-appreciated social thinker. His book The Transparent Society is an absolute must-read for anyone trying to sort out the issues of privacy and security that have become so salient since 9-11.

In Disputation Arenas: Harnessing Conflict and Competitiveness for Society’s Benefit, Brin en passant does a nice job of articulating New Growth Theory.

Consider four marvels of our age — science, democracy, the justice system and fair markets…for years, rules have been fine-tuned in each of these fields of endeavor, to reduce cheating and let quality or truth win much of the time. By harnessing human competitiveness, instead of suppressing it, these “accountability arenas” nourished much of our unprecedented wealth and freedom.

Brin argues that the “four marvels” combine “centrifugal structures” that allow people the freedom to innovate with “centripetal structures” where adversaries resolve conflicts and the best ideas win out. In a market, for example, every individual is free to try to build a better mousetrap, but the mousetraps that survive are the ones that consumers buy.

Brin says that in the world of political and social thought, we lack centripetal structures. Thus, ideas that are wrong can persist.

There is more at my old post and much more at Brin’s article. For example, Brin writes,

Our neo-western civilization throngs with “human T Cells” — educated, skeptical, independent-minded and ego-driven to pounce on some terrible mistake or nefarious scheme. Some are in government, but most aren’t. In fact, this description enfolds far more than news reporters, activists, and muckrakers. Any of you reading this can envision friends who exhibit certain traits:

Strongly held opinions.
Claiming to see patterns that others cannot.
Distrust of some (or all) authority.
Profound faith in their unique individuality.
Utter dependence on freedom of speech.

…the astonishing thing about all this raging individualism is how well it works at generating mutual and reciprocal criticism that is unavoidable even by elites. It is by far the best system ever created for discovering — and even preventing — errors that might cause real harm.

…What each of the older accountability arenas has — and today’s Internet lacks — is centripetal focus. A counterbalancing inward pull. Something that acts to draw foes together for fair confrontation, after making their preparations in safe seclusion.

Now some philanthropist might endow a series of televised debates concerning some of the major issues of the day. Say, abortion, or gun control, or the drug war. Speakers would be chosen not for their passionate radicalism, but for an ability to accurately paraphrase their opponents’ positions, showing that they listen well enough to at least comprehend the other side’s deeply felt concerns. Each party would then pose questions, with the answers judged by an expert panel for specificity, not polemical appeal.