The illogical fear of Artificial Intelligence

    In the previous article, I argued that notions of “AI will end humanity” or “AI will end human civilization” boldly cross the nonsensical fear territory with hypersonic speed, and land directly into the mysterious lands of bullshits (Pardon my language, please!). Before I get paralyzed by the fear of the unknown and speculate about a future that has not yet happened, I prefer to look back and see how the “paradigm shift” kind of technologies have affected humanity and human civilization. Among the many tools that humans have invented, let’s focus on the “cognitive-aid tools” such as AI. Since generative AI consists of large language models - sets of machine learning algorithms - trained or applied to vast data [1] produced by humans as well as machines, we can trace the origins of AI as far back as cave art. It took humanity more than 64000 years from cave art to AI-generated imageries and texts. In 64000 years, humanity has seen the rises and declines of many civilizations but none is associated with the innovation of “cognitive-aid tools”. 

The image is produced by Bing AI

Cognitive aid tools as accelerators of human civilizations: 

    Cave art is the oldest known form of human expression (a form of data produced by humans). Some of the oldest examples of cave art, such as the paintings in Maltravieso cave in Caceres, Spain, date back to 64,000 years ago [2]. Writing, on the other hand, emerged much later in human history. Some of the oldest records of writing, preserved in the form of Sumerian clay tablets, are only 3,400 years old [3]. These tablets were used for record-keeping by a number of independent city-states that formed the Sumerian civilization [4]. There is no evidence that the transition from painting to writing had any negative impact on any civilization. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that writing helped the city-states expand into empires that fostered the development of human civilizations. Even people like Graham Hancock [5], who believe that human civilization is much older and use the “Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis” [6] to support their claims, do not argue that the supposed ancient civilization was destroyed by any innovation of cognitive-aid tools such as painting, writing or printing machines. However, it is worth mentioning here that Hancock’s claims of a much older civilization have been debunked by others [7].

The image is generated by Bing AI

    No matter what your position is in this debate, one thing is clear: the invention of writing as a more efficient form of communication and record-keeping than painting did not harm human civilization but boosted its growth and expansion. Writing enabled humans to record laws, history, recipes, medicine, science, philosophy, and many other aspects of human knowledge and culture. Further evidence comes from the invention of printing machines. The printing machines did not make writers and painters obsolete but rather created new opportunities for them to flourish. The printing machines also facilitated the education of the masses, which was essential for the industrial revolution. Moreover, they allowed writers to reach millions of new customers who could afford cheaper mass-produced books. As a result, a lot of works were produced that challenged or offended the prevailing cultures, societies, and authorities, and sometimes even sparked wars, revolutions [8, 9], and mass killings [10]. However, without the printing machines, the Renaissance and modern scientific and technological innovations would not have been possible. Fast forward to our time, the innovation of computers and the internet that enabled humans to communicate live by typing on keyboards and touchscreens, in addition to talking and gesturing, accelerated social, educational, and economic growth to unprecedented levels. In the large economies that make up 70% of global GDP, the Internet contributes more than agriculture [11]. Let that sink in for a minute. This is a huge leap in human history compared to painting and writing.

The illogical fear of AI debunked

The image is generated by Bing AI

    Many people have a strange fear that AI will end human independence in decision-making, or take over human thinking and creativity. This phobia is illogical when we think about the relationship of AI with humanity rationally. What AI is doing to humans is not something unprecedented. It has happened many times. It happened when humans transitioned from hunter-gatherer tribes to agricultural societies. It also happened when humans transitioned from agricultural to industrial-dominated societies, and from industrial to digital/service-dominated societies. In all these transitions, the nature of work and human lifestyles changed. With AI, a new wave of personal assistants is on the way that will transform the fields of education, healthcare, politics, law, communication, finance, and more. During this transition (as in previous transitions), there will be a massive transfer of wealth, power, and decision-making abilities, and a significant shift in worldviews and behaviors of people that will exacerbate some of the dominant conflicts and fault lines, and bring about societal changes at an accelerated pace (I will leave these predictions/extrapolations for a future blog post). However, based on past transitions, I strongly believe that with AI assistance becoming part of our lives, the transfer of wealth, power, and societal changes will benefit most people (not just the 1% wealthy and the 10% credentialed elites).

References

[1] What is Generative Ai?. C3 AI. (2023, May 11). https://shorturl.at/HJLPU

[2] The Archaeologist. (2022, December 18). Ten oldest known cave paintings in the world. The Archaeologist. https://shorturl.at/fiFG4 

[3] Brown, S. (n.d.). Where did writing come from?. Getty. https://shorturl.at/dgmvL 

[4] Wikipedia contributors. (2023, June 21). Sumer. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:06, June 21, 2023, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sumer&oldid=1161256256 

[5] Wikipedia contributors. (2023, June 1). Graham Hancock. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:31, June 21, 2023, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graham_Hancock&oldid=1157970488

[6] Martin B. Sweatman, The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: Review of the impact evidence,

Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 218, 2021, 103677, ISSN 0012-8252,    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103677.

[7] Shermer, M. (2017, June 1). No, there wasn’t an advanced civilization 12,000 years ago. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-there-wasnt-an-advanced-civilization-12-000-years-ago/ 

[8] Wikipedia contributors. (2023, June 26). Russian Revolution. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:48, July 6, 2023, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Revolution&oldid=116196932

[9] Wikipedia contributors. (2023, June 19). Chinese Communist Revolution. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:51, July 6, 2023, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Communist_Revolution&oldid=1160842672 

[10] Wikipedia contributors. (2023, July 4). The Holocaust. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 22:10, July 6, 2023, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&oldid=1163441526

[11] James Manyika and Charles Roxburgh (2001) The great transformer: The impact of the Internet on economic growth and prosperity, McKinsey Global Institute, https://shorturl.at/AJNV9 

The Artificial Intelligence bullshit

    I always try to use polite language and still, there are exceptional times that I feel polite language fails to express my true emotions. Based on Google Ngram Viewer, the different versions of "bullshits" are on the exponential rise in printed works in recent years. See the following graph generated by the "Google Books Ngram Viewer" as a reference. "The AI bullshit" as the title of this blog post truly captures my emotion on this subject, and I don't feel that I am making a nuisance of myself as the use of "bullshit" in printed work is becoming more acceptable.

    Now that I presented something in defense of my impolite title for this blog post, let me mention the reasons for choosing such a title. Recently, I see many "expert" opinions on how AI is going to end the human race [1] and human civilizations [2]. At least predictions in the job sector are more balanced. While AI like any other "paradigm-shift" kind of technology, makes some jobs obsolete (AI may replace some 85 million jobs by 2025), however, it creates even more new jobs (an estimated 97 million new jobs at the same time) [3]. But when I turn to ordinary guys on the internet, I see multitudes of people coming up with creative ways to enhance their work by the generative power of AI, be it in generating texts, images, voice, or video. The Internet or the world wide web has been here for enough time (34 years [4]) to allow us to reflect on its impact on the human race, civilization, and job market. Like any other technology, the Internet has had both positive and negative impacts, common sense, right? We can point to positive and negative impacts on every aspect of society, but there is one impact that comes from both negative and positive aspects of the internet that surpasses everything else, and that is forcing humanity to be even smarter in order to function in the digital world. Everyone knows about the positive impacts that the internet had on their personal lives. Let's debunk some of the negative aspects of the internet. Is the internet spreading mass misinformation? Yes, and that is why humans in the digital age have to rely on their rationality, be up-to-date and use their digital skills to distinguish between fake news, propaganda (Psy-ops [5]), fake images, voices, videos, plagiarism, etc. Did the internet increase scams and Ponzi schemes [6]? Undoubtedly, it forced ordinary men and women to be more diligent, do their own research, learn about businesses and investments, and become more smart about their finances in the long run. The same is true about social app addictions, sedentary lifestyles, body images, and self-perceptions. Individuals learn about the negative health impacts of these factors and try to be more active and find a supportive community online. The changes in perspectives of people about health, education, relationship, money, and investments to the societal and ecological changes are enormous. As I mentioned earlier, and repeating myself to stress the importance of this subject, by changing the way we learn, by expanding from the people we learn, and interact with, the internet has changed us, and our perspectives whether we are aware of it or not. One of the readers who is very confident and sure about his solid way of thinking may stop me here, and say nope, the internet did not change the way I think at all. Alright, alright, he or she may be right but still the internet forces even the most hard-headed among us to think about things that he would not have thought about in the absence of the internet. The internet bombards us with information every day but then from now and then, it brings a storm of information about a subject that makes us respond like me writing on AI bullshit 😜😜😜😜😜😜

An image generated by Bing AI

    I want to shift gears now and return to the topic of AI but I can't help myself not mentioning some other aspects of the internet that would allow me to argue better about the AI bullshit. There were 12 to 24 million e-commerce sites [7] on the internet in 2022, and the number is increasing. In the fall of 2020, 11.8 million undergraduate students took some online courses in the U.S., alone [8]. In short, the internet not only has been the disrupter of the key services to the public by creating alternatives to the exclusive clubs in entertainment, education, business, politics, religion.....etc, but it also proved to be the growth engine of the economy and general prosperity. The Internet has connected 2 billion people across the globe who exchange 8 trillion dollars worth of goods and services via e-commerce sites [9].

    See not only internet didn't end the human race or human civilization, it actually served as a growth engine in every aspect of human life. AI has been part of the internet and has been part of the growth engine. I think of AI as a better version of the internet. It forces me to be even smarter. While in Web 2.0 I could be consuming tones of bullshits from "experts" who couldn't resist their biases, or sometimes, I could fall for their sophisticated (right, you already understood, the ancient sophist kinds of arguments) arguments, the AI offers a much-balanced version of any topic. While interacting with AI, I know that I am interacting with an algorithm, and do not take its answers at face value but as suggestions or starting points to dig deeper and do my own thinking. If I query something, and it produces something that I didn't mean, I know I haven't asked proper questions and it forces think more straightforwardly, more clearly, and more precisely. The balanced and straightforward answers help us to be more balanced and more precise. Will there be unintended harms and negative aspects of more conscious or advanced AI? Definitely, but by forcing us to become even smarter, AI does not end the human race or human civilization but will push us to become a much better version of us capable of functioning and handling smart tools such as generative or maybe tomorrow sentient AI.

Image generated by Bing AI

References

[1] Cellan-Jones, R. (2014, December 2). Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540

[2] Yuval Noah Harari argues that AI has hacked the operating system of human civilization. (n.d.). The Economist. Retrieved June 6, 2023, from https://shorturl.at/brwIR

[3] Thomas, M. (2019, August 27). AI and the Future of Jobs. Built In; Mike Thomas. https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-replacing-jobs-creating-jobs

[4] Wikipedia contributors. (2023, May 8). History of the World Wide Web. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:16, June 6, 2023, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_World_Wide_Web&oldid=1153796078

[5] Wikipedia contributors. (2023, May 31). Psychological warfare. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:29, June 6, 2023, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_warfare&oldid=1157798018

[6] Wikipedia contributors. (2023, May 16). Ponzi scheme. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:37, June 6, 2023, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ponzi_scheme&oldid=1155018798[7] IBISWorld - Industry Market Research, Reports, and Statistics. (n.d.) Www.ibisworld.com. https://shorturl.at/biFIU

[8] National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The NCES Fast Facts Tool provides quick answers to many education questions (National Center for Education Statistics). Ed.gov; National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80

Schools are enablers but not the makers of great humans

Is education limited to a timeline? 

Schools, as we all know, follow a timeline. As soon as a student begins school, a race against time and comparison with other students starts. The students who move fast in this timeline or perform much better than his/her peers are considered bright students. And of course, every class has one or two bright students. I have no doubt that the majority of these bright students do well in their personal lives or make good and rewarding careers. To do well in life or career one needs to follow the existing systems. The question is how many of these bright students become great humans by creating a new system that becomes mainstream and changes humanity’s direction? 

The image is generated by Bing image generator 

With a quick glance at what we learn in school, one realizes that learning a system is fast but creating a new system requires an intellectual “Superman” or “Supergirl” if you like. For instance, children learn abstract ideas like alphabets and numerals in the first two years of schooling. It took humanity more than 6 million years to invent these abstract systems. Why did it take humanity so long to come up with systems that children learn in a few years of mentored learning? We can find some clues in the difference between learning a language and writing. Children learn language with ease, and when they enter the school, they are already equipped with the spoken language.  Learning writing, requires immense effort from the student, and his/her mentors, simultaneously. Let’s put it another way. It is very likely that humans in the stone age spoke complex languages comparable to modern languages. In 1930, Michael Leahy, an Australian Gold prospector came across the native people in the central mountains of New Guinea - the second largest island in the world - that he thought spoke in a “jabbering” language [1]. By 1960, it was learned that the native people spoke 800 different languages. The island was isolated from the rest of humanity for 40,000 years, and the languages that evolved were distinct to this island. In comparison, humans invented writing 5000 years ago. It is common knowledge that both alphabets and numerals evolved slowly in the last 5000 years. For instance, ancient Egyptians could write in hieroglyphics, and ancient Romans didn’t have the concept of zero. Noam Chomsky has an answer for the differences between language acquisition and writing skills. He proposes that all humans have an innate capacity for language and all languages follow a universal grammar [2]. The innate ability for language, even the partial innate ability explains well, why cavemen could have complex languages, and children learn language at ease even in isolated tribes. 

 Once students learn how to read and write, they are implicitly told that to become good at something they have to practice a lot. Phrases like, “practice makes perfect” are often quoted in a variety of ways. In recent years, round numbers such as 10,000 or 1,000,000 have become popular.  It is so appealing to learn that if one spends “10,000” hours at anything, he or she can become very good at it. It is known as a 10,000 rule [3]. It takes 3-4 years of disciplined commitment to accomplish the 10,000 rule. Let’s do some simple calculations. If one spends 8 hours a day with no breaks for 3.4 years on a single task such as writing, he or she can accomplish the 10,000 hours rule. Besides, the 10,000-hour rule, there is a million-word rule [4] for becoming a good writer which agrees on the amount of time with the 10,000 rule. If a person makes a commitment to writing 1000 words every day, it will take him or her 3 years to complete the task of writing 1 million words. 

In school, students spend lots of time reading and writing. If the 10,000 hours or a million hours rule is true, why do we not see a mass of good writers and speakers among high school graduates? By the time a student graduates from high school, he or she has spent more than 10,000 hours in school learning the basics of human knowledge. The 10,000 hours number comes from OECD [5] which says that a student in the U.S. spends 8,884 hours over 9 years in primary and lower secondary schools. If we add 4 more years that a student spends in high school to this number considering that the student spends 180 days per year or 1260 hours per year in school, a high school graduate has spent 13924 hours in school. 

When I googled famous authors with high school education, 14 names showed up including Mark Twain, William Shakespeare, Leo Tolstoy, Maxim Gorky, George Orwell, David Hume, Robert Frost, Jackie Collins, Michael Morpurgo, Frank McCourt, Roald Dahl, Dana Goldstein, Anne Ruggles Gere, and Juana Ines de la Cruz. What these famous writers had or done that millions of other high school graduates did not do? A quote attributed to Pablo Picasso may shed some light on this problem, “It took me 4 years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.” Picasso’s four years also agrees with the 10,000 hours or a million words rule but it adds another dimension to the debate, and that’s the personal calling. Since the 10,000 rule is a general rule, we may argue that by spending 10000 hours one can acquire the competency needed to write well or paint well, but to write something or paint something that changes the way people think or see things requires something personal - something that allows people see things beyond learned frames of thinking or organizing things, in case of Picasso seeing things like children, for instance. Just as Picasso learned to paint like Raphael, if he kept painting in that style, he wouldn’t be the Picasso we know. He had to come up with something totally different from all previous artists, something very close to the cave artists. 

Do genetic and environmental variations explain the difference between good and great?

Physical performances like athletic performances are greatly influenced by genetic variations -30 to 80 percent [6]. The muscle composition like slow-twitch muscle fiber and fast-twitch muscle fiber determines the endurance versus speed of the athletes, aerobic capacity - the maximum amount of oxygen that the body can provide to muscles, and other obvious physical determinants like height and muscle mass are mostly predetermined by the genetic inheritance. Besides physical fields, genetics also have a great influence on the intellectual performances of individuals. It is no brainer to see the link between one’s ability to behave, regulate one’s emotions, and form social bonds or attachments will determine one’s performance in school, work, relationships, and quality of life, in general. These three qualities are attributed to one’s temper, and it has been shown that temper is influenced by genetic inheritance [7]. In addition to genetics, environmental influences play an enormous role in both the physical and intellectual performances of a person. There is a critical period for the acquisition of a new language or language. A child exposed to multiple languages at the age of 1 to 5 years can effortlessly become multilingual. Recent studies extended the critical period for the acquisition of new languages to 17-18 years of age [8]. Another important aspect of the environment is the development of the attachment style that a baby develops in the first year of life [9] depending on the relationship of the baby to the caregiver which will highly influence the child’s future relationship when he or she enters into adulthood. 

Based on the variations in genetics and also the environment, it becomes obvious that there will be great variations among individuals just by following the 10,000 hours rule. It is also evident from the results of high school graduates. As mentioned before, students spend around 14000 hours in school to graduate high school, but only 60 to 70% of the students enrolled in colleges from 1993 to 2021 [10]. Besides, time, genetics, and environment are other factors to consider when we think about becoming good at something. Considering the accelerating rates of progress in every field, it seems a sufficient number of individuals become good at something. Considering the global talent pool at Silicon Valley that has come from gene pools across the globe and from a variety of educational institutions, one can argue that deliberate practice for around 10,000 hours may override most of the genetic and environmental variations among individuals. Becoming good enough at something is universal for most abled men and women. My argument is about going from good to great. Considering very few great men and women in each generation, I am inclined to think that going from good to great is something personal. 

So, What makes someone go from good to great?

I began this article by comparing language versus writing and numerals and argued that writing and numerals were hard to invent because, unlike language, they are based on systems. Numerals as a system of thinking are still in progress. What makes an individual great is not mere time spent practicing but time spent tweaking a system to improve or change it enough that it allows the rest of humanity to see the reality whether natural or constructed with a new perspective. Most people learn -mostly from schools - the systems but very few try to change it for the better. 

References

[1] Pinker, Steven. The Language Instinct. How the Mind Creates Language. Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition, 2007. 

[2] Tool Module: Chomsky's Universal Grammar, https://tinyurl.com/yjjm57mr 

[3] Gladwell, Malcolm. Outliers: The Story of Success. Back Bay Books, Little, Brown and Company, 2019. 

[4] Fortier-Dubois, Étienne. “How Many Words Have You Ever Written?”, Atlas of Wonders and Monsters, 30 Dec. 2021, https://tinyurl.com/2unpd3x4

[5] “United States: Read Online.” Oecd, https://tinyurl.com/ykbd53ev

[6] “Is Athletic Performance Determined by Genetics?: Medlineplus Genetics.” MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine, https://tinyurl.com/2p82uk4b 

[7] Cloninger, C.R., Cloninger, K.M., Zwir, I. et al. The complex genetics and biology of human temperament: a review of traditional concepts in relation to new molecular findings. Transl Psychiatry 9, 290 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-019-0621-4

[8] “Cognitive Scientists Define Critical Period for Learning Language.” MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1 May 2018, https://tinyurl.com/mpzdrufb 

[9] Li, Pamela. “Bowlby & Ainsworth Attachment Theory – How Does It Work?” Parenting for Brain, 17 Jan. 2023, www.parentingforbrain.com/attachment-theory.

[10] 61.8 Percent Of Recent High School Graduates Enrolled In College In October 2021 : The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics. 23 May 2022,https://tinyurl.com/3pk448ha 

So, the original is a hybrid? Not an angel or a devil?

I thought two kinds of originals existed that were recognized by humanity from time immemorial, an angel and a devil. The humans weren’t originals. They had to choose to become either an angel or a devil or if they did not have the guts of becoming either, they had to ask for help from an angel to save them or worship a devil to grant them the power to dominate others. But Adam Grant suggests that all who believe in these two well-defined groupings are conformists and to be an original, you have to be non-conformist. What the hell is a non-conformist? See, I am being a nonconformist here. The professor asked to summarize the video talk in 125 words, maximum. I watched the video. In the video, Adam Grant sells the idea that nonconformists are originals, and guess what? While watching the video, the “power of suggestion” starts rewiring the synapses (neuron connections) in my brain, and my brain instructs me to be an original by changing the format of writing. It instructs me to write the essay like an opening scene of a movie - show a scene that promises something is going to happen. Before I go back to the story of hybrids, read the summary of the video;

The image is generated by the Bing generator 

Summary 

In his TED talk titled, “The surprising habits of original thinkers”, Adam Grants notes three common habits of the people he considers “originals. The first habit is being “slow to get off the ground”, the second is doubting an idea instead of doubting one's ability, and third, generating lots of ideas until stumbling on an original idea. 

Response

While Adam Grants are successful in selling the three habits, and it is possible that most of the people who came up with an original idea and popularized those ideas through their works somewhat share percentages of these habits, I am not convinced of the implied definition of the “original” for several reasons, chief among them is the improving an existing idea. Another important reason is producing lots of ideas in the hope of stumbling upon an original idea. I am not saying that it doesn’t work. But I am inclined to the notion of the data analysts who believe in the concept of “garbage in, garbage out”. The quality of results or predictions depends on the quality of data, and that is the reason data scientists or scientists in general spend most of their time generating and sorting quality data before analyzing it. I think the same is true in the arts, creating movies, writing novels, establishing a business …etc. 

Originality is a personal culture. If one has developed a culture of originality then he or she can benefit from Adam Grant's ideas the most. I believe the culture of “originality” comes from the realization that there is no finished work and there is nothing perfect, not even in Nature. It is all processes that we experience. The wider culture of the society usually kills the realization of processes by the rules, costumes, traditions, procedures… etc. An original person develops a culture and skills strong enough to make his or her rule-breaking work acceptable to the wider culture. Picasso describes originality beautifully, “It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.” Adam Grant’s three habits enrich the personal cultures of an original person by informing him how these habits helped other original thinkers. I am inclined to think that one has not developed a personal culture of originality, he or she might enjoy the talk but those habits might not stick with him or her, and he/she might forget them when he/she finds another enjoyable video or video. 

Inclusive democracy is the engine of progress

Abigail Hogan in his article titled, “Discourse Is Democracy: Allowing Uncensored Speech on College Campuses" argues that a college is a place of growth, and for the development of political issues in the real world, the students in college need to engage in open and informed debates. The growing practice of blocking speakers with different political opinions is taking away the opportunity of listening to opposing ideas and engage in informed conversations. Protests by college students are a catalyst of democracy and progress but blocking speakers from colleges is a disservice to democracy. The stop on blocking speakers will benefit both students and future political discourse. 

I have an algorithmic approach to reviewing a piece of opinion that I have refined over the years. The algorithm is borrowed from the title of the famous Western movie by name of, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”. Any part of an opinion that is based on facts or can be backed by facts is the good part. The parts that are based on gray areas or not conclusive data are a terrible part of the argument. The part that is based on prejudices, or can’t be backed by concrete evidence is the ugly part of the opinion. 

Armed with an algorithm that I have defined in the previous paragraph, the good part about the opinion piece is the reference to the “Foundation for Individual Rights in Education” and the numbers of incidences that shows an increase in the practice students attempt to prevent public figures from speaking at colleges. Another good part of the article is the definitions of the protests and also political discourse with references to historical events such as Gandhi’s salt march, and the American Civil Rights movements, as well as the current polarization of the political environment. This distinction serves well in favor of the argument as it points to the fact that protests during the American Civil Rights movements had a healing effect on American society and political discourse in general, and in comparison, the college protests will deepen the political polarization by creating echo chambers, and therefore, it is interests of students to allow a wide range of opinions in the colleges. 

Image generated by Bing image generator 

Now, the bad part of the article is omitting the long history of marginalization as well as polarization. The article gives references to public figures and popular political movements. See, right there lies the problem that consequently shows itself in the form of political polarization and intolerance in the form of student protests. Let me explain. Public figures have had long careers and well-known political discourses that are known to the public, and it is hard to not hear them given the interests of newspapers, magazines, television, and social media about their lives, careers, and opinions. Allowing them to speak at colleges or not allowing them at colleges both serve them well as both events advertise their well-known opinions. An interesting exercise would be to bring these public figures to colleges and let them listen to students coming from marginalized backgrounds. The colleges and other students can help these students to refine their opinions and be able to present their thoughts and experiences. OR, alternatively, colleges can invite opinionated individuals from marginalized communities, and let public figures and other students listen to them. This practice serves well both democracy and political discourse. 

Now comes the ugly part of the article, and that’s jumping to the conclusion that “if we fail to listen or we turn our back to the opposition instead of arguing and engaging, then we have already lost” without providing a clear picture of how to engage and argue with opposition, who is the opposition and what we will lose by not engaging? Let me elaborate a bit. Students who come to college might not have had the levels of exposure to the pressing political issues, haven’t had the opportunities to speak their minds, learn to express themselves in proper manners, and even more importantly have more pressing personal issues that do not permit them to ponder political issues. Do the students who protest to the speaker represent all students or they have had exposure to political debates all their lives, and college is just one of many platforms available to them? Because of their vast exposure, they might not miss or lose anything. In the case of political discourse, they might be deep in dialogues or engaging fiercely on social media or political meetings, or other platforms. Even with casual surfing of the internet, newspapers, mainstream media, books, and journals published, we find a small intellectual class dominating the political discourse everywhere. Considering the dominant voices, allowing or blocking public figures in colleges does not change the outcomes of current political polarization or does not add any benefits to the students. There is a need for debate on the transparency of algorithms used for show web searches, enabling students to express themselves, publications, the way public figures are made, and selection of the speakers in order for marginalized voices to be heard, and engaging and inclusive debates to become possible. 

Any quick read of developmental psychology [1], makes it obvious that children's mental development is heavily influenced by their environments. A decade or two ago, it was mainstream media and Ivy schools that dominated the narrative spheres and influenced the mind development of most of the students. Then, the internet came and there were hopes for a more open and engaging environment where voices on the fringes could also be heard. Now, there are a few companies that dominate web searches, and their algorithms [2] bury the fringe voices deep enough to make them voiceless again. In fact, the internet has become an echo chamber, as once was mainstream media. Growing up in such an environment where voices on the fringes are discouraged (maybe unintentionally or purely on business needs or political needs), talking about the progress of political discourse or benefits of students just by allowing or blocking a public speaker on college campuses is misleading or doesn’t change the current environment. Every new invention, technology, or policy brings some hope but without guardrails, the mainstream becomes mainstream, and the voices on the fringes remain on the fringes. I have named this argumentative and response essay, “Inclusive Democracy is the Engine of Progress” which summarizes my response to Abigail’s article. 

References

1. Wikipedia contributors. (2023, February 10). Developmental psychology. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology

2. Weapons of math destruction how big data increases inequality and threatens democracy, O'Neil - Broadway Books - 2017