Seeking Social Approval is Bad Methodology

Isaac, my man. Thanks for the question. Here’s my response:

Nothing is more important than the truth. Therefore, nothing is more important than the pursuit of truth. Therefore, nothing is more important than the methods we employ in the pursuit of truth.

Caring about the “social cost” of truth-seeking is simply a bad method for finding the truth. “Keeping the peace” and “leaving weak arguments alone” tend to be bad methods, also. 

There can be some situations in which it’s strategically wise to refrain from argumentation, but in my case, those situations are rare. Arguments that might result in imprisonment or persecution could be unwise to share, at least under your own name. Suicide is another example. I’m hesitant to write about suicide, since I think a strong case can be made in favor of suicide in some circumstances. However, I don’t want to contribute to somebody’s suicide, especially if they aren’t in the right mental state to deal with heavy philosophical arguments.

The real question is: do other people’s opinions of you really matter?

It’s a mistake to start with the question “Will people think I’m arrogant?” 

We first have to ask, “Does it even matter if people think I’m arrogant?” 

Because if it doesn’t matter, then there’s no reason to concern myself about it.

From what I can tell, the answer is generally no, it doesn’t matter, and the energy spent trying to gain social approval is usually a waste of finite mental resources.

If the goal is truth-seeking, then I have to ask: are other people’s opinions well-founded, and will they get me closer to truth?

Again the answers are no and no. 

I have no reason to believe that most people are psychologically developed beyond your average 16-year-old. I don’t believe they are well-thought or even close to it. Therefore, I can’t take their opinions any more seriously than a 16-year-old's. Hearing “Your ideas are so stupid and wrong!” sounds as persuasive as “Your shoes are totally uncool, man!” Though, I admit, these words do retain some sting, but it’s less than a bee sting.

I make this evaluation because I, myself, was 16 and can recognize the patterns. There are only a few exceptions, that I’ve seen, of people well-developed enough where I take their criticisms seriously.

The same is true for intellectual disagreements. The quality of counter-arguments I tend to encounter are poor. How do I know? Since I probably made them at some point in the past and can recognize them. 

Therefore, I can’t pretend like general social acceptance is useful for getting me closer to truth. This is also why I think academic “peer review” is a bad method, since the quality of peers is terrible.

I suppose there could be one exception. General social acceptance is a good heuristic for determining what is wrong. If most people think something is true, and it's unfashionable to doubt, then it’s probably wrong. So that can be useful.

As long as I can generate enough income to continue my work, social approval be damned. If other people improve the quality of their ideas and arguments, I will be the first to listen.