Why the most prominent ideas are not necessarily the best.
This piece was co-authored by Nason Maani, and his version is cross-posted here
Today’s essay is part of our Ideas about Ideas series, a running theme of which is the notion that ideas have social lives. This may seem strange. How can ideas have social lives? It is not as if they are alive, with personalities and independent agency. This may be so. Yet, like living things, like people, ideas have origins and conditions that shape them. Ideas can grow their influence in a variety of ways. They can spread slowly and steadily simply by being good, workable notions that many are happy to adopt. They can advance through patronage, their wagon hitched to powerful people or social movements who use this power to encourage, even force, the adoption of favored ideas (and discourage disfavored ones through censorship and suppression). Or they can catch on through sheer prevalence and dominance in the public conversation and influential institutions, crowding out alternatives to become the only lens through which a problem or issue is viewed.
It is this form of influence that we would like to discuss today—ideas crowding out alternatives. It is a phenomenon that is of central importance to the work of science and public health, characterizing how many ideas gain traction and stay ubiquitous in our field. The better we understand this tendency, the more we can contribute to an intellectual ecosystem where ideas rise to the top because they are genuinely the best ideas, rather than simply the most widespread or intractable (it is not always the case, of course, that ideas which are ubiquitous are necessarily bad or mediocre, but when such ideas rise for reasons other than pure meritocracy, even when they are good, it is always worth asking why).
Read more here