Proved my point

Somebody on substack claimed that quality is the best way to be read online. If you publish the best account of a subject, better than existing work, people will “beat a path to your door”. I responded that it doesn’t work that way, in science or in social media. I linked to my ACTUAL RESEARCH proving with AN ACTUAL EXPERIMENT that Scientology’s E-meter was a panic generator, not a passive polygraph. As far as I can tell, this is the only time anyone has performed the experiment, and it counters a commonly held belief. Those facts “should” give it scientific credibility, “should” make it the best and only research on the subject. Nobody has ever read the item. A week later, I don’t see any new reads. Nobody bothered to follow the link.

He proved my point, which really didn’t need proving. In fairness, he said that he hadn’t tried to publish the best piece on a subject, so he was just stating a theory.

In real life quality is irrelevant. Status is everything. Nobody with any experience believes that quality gets attention.

This has been shown repeatedly in the realm of “science”, where the same myth is widespread. Allegedly the best way to get attention is to publish a study that breaks orthodoxy. Nope. Breaking orthodoxy means you’re ignored and unpublished and untenured. The best way to gain status is to follow fashion. All the grants go to fashion followers, and grants assure more grants.

The same thing happened in the history of tech. Most of GM’s inventions and Edison’s inventions were invented earlier by people who didn’t get rich or famous. Making a better mousetrap means that a big outfit will steal your idea. The one major exception is the phonograph, developed by Edison himself (or his company) with absolutely no predecessors. But the phonograph came when Edison’s company was already well established, so it could be appreciated and monetized.

What’s the solution? Bell Labs is the best example. When government REGULATES monopolies and FORCES them to serve the public, they will. Bell and other large industrial labs had enough STABILITY to encourage open thinking in unorthodox directions. In the modern Share Value era, nobody can count on stability. Saving is discouraged. Everyone is engaged in ferocious GAMBLING, trying to churn out clickbait to survive a few more days, hoping for the BIG BET that will win the Altman jackpot or the government funding jackpot.

EXPERIMENTATION REQUIRES STABILITY AND SAVINGS.

WHEN THE WHOLE SYSTEM RUNS ON BETS AND DEBTS, LEARNING IS IMPOSSIBLE AND EXPERIMENT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

= = = = =

Update 5/31: Somebody followed the link! Yay. Disproved the theory.