I don't like my blog, and neither do you!
- Kruxi
- Apr 26, 2020
- 2 min read
This refers to my previous post “I don’t like art, and neither do you”. In that post, I argued that people consume art as a signal, using extrinsic features of art, rather than enjoying intrinsic features of art. The reader data on the blog post “I don’t like art, and neither do you” is further evidence for this theory. I will pretend that this blog is a piece of art (LOL). The intrinsic value of this blog is the content. The extrinsic value of the blog is that I wrote it. The fact that out of 190 readers only my closest friends engaged points to the fact that the extrinsic factors of my blog are more valued than the intrinsic factors.
The readers’ data seems to indicate that people do not engage because of the intrinsic properties of my blog (the content) but because of the extrinsic properties (me writing it). People engaging with my content are not doing so because they like the content, but because they like me. There is a high likelihood that among the 190 readers, there are people who have something to say about my blog, more so than my best friends. But evidently, only my closest friends commented. It seems that they are valuing the extrinsic factor of me writing it, being able to discuss it over dinner when corona is over, and thus gaining social capital. If people would enjoy the intrinsic value of my blog there would be more involvement of people who are close to the content rather than close to the writer.
PS:
Sure, this could also mean that there just isn’t any intrinsic value in my blog thus nothing for non-friends to engage with… That could explain the readers’ data as well. But, let’s hope that that’s not true…
Sure, there is an availability bias and sampling bias here. As I posted the blog on social media I will receive views from friends and thus only my closest friends will feel comfortable jumping into the debate. I still think that out of my 190 reader “friends” there must be someone more informed about the topic of valuing art than my closest friends. I think the argument still holds.
Lastly, Thanks to my close friend Giovanni commenting on the art blog post, pointing out that this blog might be a whole bunch of extrinsic factors, I decided to write a whole post about this.
Jaschi's beautiful mathematician's logic explains it....
looking forward to the next controversial post
I agree that it makes sense to count public discussion as an extrinsic value. But its absence is not proof of a lack of intrinsic value.
Interesting thoughts by Giov and Jaschi, I still disagree... If I were to write about model trains I would still see a disproportionate amount of my friends commenting and engaging rather than readers that do have more to say about this...
Is not a bit arrogant to say that you guys (my best friends) happen to be the most informed about the topics that i write about (among the readership)?
Regarding Jaschis last sentence: I think that the public discussion of the content is an extrinsic value...
Thanks Kruxi, I feel so special right now...
Anyway, if you were blogging about model trains or the importance of the beret in french culture, I am pretty sure that different people to the one's commenting your economic's post, would comment. Therefore, as Jaschi said, the motivation to participate may stem from extrinsic values, but who participates when will surely depend on the intrinsic values of each post.
Hi Kruxi,
I don't know. I also don't understand how discussion relates to the intrinsic value of your blog. Instead, I think your argument may show that the motivation to engage in discussion is (largely) extrinsic. The (intrinsic or extrinsic) value of your blog is, I think, different from the (intrinsic or extrinsic) value of the public discussion about it.