Why Does Creating Value Lessen Idiocy?
Visited 1034 Times Published by Rico September 5th, 2007 in Blogging, Rico's Ramblings, Why and Writing.Benj recently wrote about his mainstream media exposure, calling for a “truly democratized setup with no idiots to rattle off insane arguments.” Kudos to him.
There’s an easy way to avoid being an idiot rattling off insane arguments, and that’s to concentrate on value. Maybe bloggers should focus on creating something useful for their readers—even on their personal blog.
Oh, I definitely don’t have a monopoly on value, especially when you look at my posts covering a recent Cebu-Bohol trip, “Goodminton“, and even random scribblings on a twenty-peso bill. And you might be wondering why I’ve talked about recent controversies on the BBN blog.
I guess you can say that you could blame my cat blogger side for the former. It’s an aspect of my personality that I’m trying to suppress (with limited success?). As for the BBN home page, I envisioned it as a blog meant to cover the Philippine blogosphere, among other things. If passionate discussions limited with no ultimate point are the hot thing on the Philippine blogosphere, then I guess that’s what I have to write about.
Granted, this isn’t a very proactive approach, and I freely admit that that should change. And as I feel my blogging voice develop, I’ve realized that talking about what’s happening in one’s own life without creating any value is usually pointless self-expression at best and pandering to the popularity game at worst. Which is why I hate Twitter (though, as Janet pointed out, it allows easy promotion).
The point is that so much animosity created by idiocy could be avoided if more bloggers concentrated on value. Our posts should be treasure maps that provide a reward in the end, instead of providing no direction for our readers and leave them raging over their disorientation. Maybe that way readers (including myself) will be less inclined to tap into their vitriol reserves, and approach the statements as they are, taking opinions less personally.
Enjoyed this post? Subscribe to Fool for Five today, and Share This with others. Donate and help keep Fool for Five online.
Yep, creating value and avoiding the echo chamber is the best course in the blogosphere.
Now if the created value can only be liquidated. Hehehe.
That’s actually another benefit of creating value. Making that lucrative takes patience and going about it the right way.
Hmmm, just to be clear, it’s in the context of the the de facto blog hierarchy muffling the opinions of other not-so-prominent bloggers with the use of bad argumentation. I think it’s time for a real sense of egalitarianism.
I understand what you mean by bad argumentation. I’m guilty of it myself, and certain examples are part of the reason behind this post.
But what do you mean by sense of egalitarianism? A state where anyone can freely state their opinions? Or are you talking about people giving equal weight to everyone’s statements?
It’s a little bit of both.
Everyone gets a chance to say what they want to say, but in the end, the judgment has to be based on the merit of the argument - not on how much influence that person has. We’ve seen in the past how the big guns can escape without much fanfare even with the most horrid of excuses and substantiation. This applies for both the state and the blog community.
It’s just sad when it’s the top dogs and their YES-men are the only ones running the show - and in turn warping reality.
You can never take away the effect of influence and the existence of yes-men, because they’re natural developments of any human interaction.
I may be cynical, but I think the best anyone can do is argue logically (another way of creating value), stick to their guns, and be consistent.
Good point. Yup, I guess it’s better to stick to one’s guns and just strive to gain that level of influence and Yes-men. Err, not necessarily better, but it seems like the only feasible solution in our less-than-ideal setup.
Well, I wouldn’t characterize influence and groupies (lol) as the objective of consistency, but as side effects instead.