Been thinking a lot about how conservatives and capitalists have been jamming ideas about free markets down our throats forever but can’t understand that academia is a market place of ideas where with study and investigation outmoded and bad ideas are replaced with newer, better ones.
From my experience with free markets, they aren't about providing better products.
They're more about providing products that can be produced as cheaply as possible while charging the highest prices for them. Often this mean flooding the market with worse quality, cheaply made, rip-off copies.
For them "free markets" have nothing to do with innovation or producing a better product. Their markets are "free" from government regulation, so once they've captured the market, they believe they should be free to continuously dominate it *in spite of and especially* when better products appear.
In the same way, I suppose, that they want government support for their businesses, while less worthy ones are allowed to fail.
The free market is only acceptable when the people and ideas they personally like win out.
In my experience people obsessed with free markets are usually big supporters of monopolies, insider trading, collusion, price fixing, govt bailouts etc. Basically white collar criminals who want to do whatever they want but also have the govt save them when they fail miserably.
You seem to be forgetting the most important part of evaluating the correctness of ideas: “I’m always right and anything that suggests I was wrong is reverse-racist, woke, socialist propaganda.”
In my experience, it isn't.
I've been touting an upgrade to Aerodynamics for almost three years; the academic engineers best placed to investigate & adopt (or dismiss on evidence, IF they can...) were also the quickest to call me either confused or a conspiracy theorist (on no evidence...).
The conservatives who won't shut up about the Meritocratic Marketplace of Ideas always seem awfully uncomfortable with the unavoidable implication that ideas will sometimes fail on their own merits.
Ex: Like, sorry, the reason your kid learns at uni that gender and sex are separate and don’t predetermine each other is b/c scholars in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities spent decades studying, researching, and comparing notes to find more cutting edge knowledge than what you learned.
Wanting universities to teach and look like they did 20 years ago or 50 years ago is like insisting telegraphs are the best form of communication and we should be forced to keep using them because they are canon.
They're not bright.
Have you ever heard managers pitch an idea to VPs or upper management try to get "buy in" from employees?
They love to demonize the current system and then claim salvation is a new word that's basically just the same thing as the old system. They always think you're fooled too.