A different motivation for Price
The more I have watched this discussion unfold, the more it seems to me that Price had an entirely different motivation. My theory is that his objective was really to conduct an anthropological experiment to examine the following:
- How does a group respond to criticism? What effect does it have when the criticism comes from without? What effect does it have when the criticism is directed to a matter seen as irrelevant by the group?
- As regards the specific responses to the criticism, part 1: Can the group internalize and give any credence to the criticism? To what extent will the norms of the group be used to nullify the criticism? To what extent will external norms be criticised in response?
- As regards the specific responses to the criticism, part 2: How long does it take for the critic to become the target of the response? When will a nefarious agenda be suggested as the real source of the criticism? When will the critic's credentials be called into question? When will the critic be ridiculed outright?
Ok, this is mostly tongue-in-cheek, but it would certainly have been a fruitful experiment given the conduct of the discussion herein.
A Modest Proposal (Thanks to Jonathan Swift)
Here's a solution to the apparent impasse and declining use of civil discourse that have manifested themselves recently on this thread as well as several others like Chaotic Dynamics; Strategy, Values, and Ideas; and Russia and the US to name just a few.
Let's split the SWC discussion board into three autonomous regions. It seems to me it would map out like this:
--liberal intellectual theorists on one board
--conservative hands-on practitioners on a second board
--middle of the road synthesizers on the third
It can be used as a test bed to see how well this sort of proposal might solve the problems in Iraq.
In the interests of full disclosure, I must admit that this idea was stimulated by Sargent's post "A Different Motivation for Price"