THIS IS AN EXPLAINER for academic Twitter concerning James Lindsay (@ConceptualJames). I watched an interview with him where he explains how he thinks about Twitter and I learned a lot! 🤯 So, I wanted to share!!!
The goal is basically to reduce misunderstanding and conflict when interacting with him. So we can all be happier overall. Let me first summarize what I learned from his interview...
James Lindsay's Twitter account is similar to a work of performance art. This is why engaging with it has been counterproductive for many academics and why we should all probably stop doing it on any level.
(I am ironically aware that this thread violates its own rule.)
(I am ironically aware that this thread violates its own rule.)
When I finally sat down and watched a video interview with Lindsay, everything fell into place. I finally understand him on his own terms. I am providing the primary source material below and I'm also sharing my reactions.
Source:
Source:
WHAT IS HE UP TO ON TWITTER? He seems to think it's impossible to have real conversations on Twitter. So, he instead engages in an exchange of text with others that might seem superficially like conversation but isn't as a means of providing entertainment for himself and others.
This perspective strikes me as the complete opposite of what I'm trying to do which is inject as much sincerity and truth into this platform (Twitter) as possible. I think this puts me in the same camp as thousands of other academics on "Academic Twitter".
Since Lindsay's approach to Twitter is so different, it makes sense that there's conflict. Our idea of what it means to have a discussion on here is different. People have described our dialogs as two people "talking past each other" but he's not even talking. He's "talking".
This feels like a very post-modern issue to have but lets not get into that. I understand him to be saying the "medium is the message". From what understand, he argues that the Twitter medium itself constrains the message to us spitting meaningless nonsense at each other.
Any of us that have spent even a day on Twitter know that he's not completely wrong. The structure of Twitter does encourage meaningless, unproductive exchanges. He seems to take it quite a few steps further and conclude that no conversation at all is possible on Twitter.
I see his argument and it follows logically from the empirical facts as he seems to see them. I think most of academic twitter including myself are working from a different set of factual claims and so we come to a different conclusion.
In the video, Lindsay says his mental model of what he's doing on Twitter is "stand-up comedy". He's trying to put on a show. As someone who tries to be funny on Twitter as well. I get it. Don't explain the joke. Don't get into details. Don't let the audience derail the show.
He says in the video that he doesn't engage in real conversations because it would ruin the performance. We academics know about this. When a student interrupts too much during a lecture with specific questions, the professor says, "Let's talk after class".
There are two quotes that stood out for me as very enlightening. I share them below:
1. "I don't actually think that hypocrisy means very much. I don't. I don't really care if someone's a hypocrite."
2. "I don't really regret any of the public behavior that I have on Twitter almost ever because it's just not conducive [to conversation]."
2. "I don't really regret any of the public behavior that I have on Twitter almost ever because it's just not conducive [to conversation]."
As far as I can tell, with respect to this very specific medium called "Twitter", he probably doesn't mean anything he's saying or he doesn't mean most of what he's saying any more than comedians mean what they're saying during a show.
The people who get angry with him are thus like the people who get mad at comedians. This thread should not be taken as a disparagement of him. It is more like the frank accounting of interpersonal dynamics that takes place before suggesting a parting of ways is in order.
Based on the fact that Lindsay uses Twitter in extremely different ways from us, and on the fact that his way of doing things is affecting our way of doing things, and on this review of his arguments, my warning to myself and academic Twitter is no conversation is possible here.
Later in the video he says, "I don't have time or energy to be serious on Twitter. I just don't. I mean I say serious things but I'm not there to engage in conversation. I make no pretenses that I'm there to engage in conversation."
I now understand why his behavior seems right to him. I also believe his behavior is not personal to me. I suspect he sees the trolling I experienced as a consequence of Twitter's design rather than anything he's specifically doing.
Based on all this, it's clear to me that the best thing to do is to wish him well in doing what he thinks is best and deal with any side effects as best I can on my side. (I'm philosophically Stoic and this is how we deal with these things.)
One parting comment. If at some point Lindsay does engage with this or you, remember it's all performance art. Don't seriously engage.
In the the interest of full disclosure, I have been heavily affected by interactions with Lindsay which I detail here:
If you’re at all in doubt about anything I’ve said, please scroll up and watch the video.
Addendum: After some reflection, I realize I should have made clear in the explainer that I was explaining Lindsay in his own words in order to show that even in his view of things, he shouldn't be taken seriously. I don't mean to imply his view of himself is the objective truth.
Addendum II: For those wishing for a more confrontational approach rather than just disengaging, it might be helpful to share your answer to the following question:
