I also had in mind the same experience you describe of going between different phases.

My attention can be extremely diffuse, but if there's a problem I want to solve (that's challenging but just within reach of my abilities) then I have no problem grinding away at it.

I'm pretty sure Dewey covered that, but it's been a while (I'm getting myself back into pragmatism so it could become a more common topic here).

I like this notion of “voyages of discovery.” I encourage you to expand on it. It is something I recognize from my own experience, but I don't think I've seen it written about before. It deserves some analysis. For instance this is the only way I learn programming languages; I've never learned one from a book and I'm not sure I could. Once I have a project in mind, I learn what I need to, and once I've learned that, I start thinking of other things I could do; but I've never sat down to “learn a programming language.” I do read books about programming, but only on an abstract level. But then it's impossible to learn a natural language this way: I've tried and failed more than once. The grind seems to be necessary.

I also had in mind the same experience you describe of going between different phases.

My attention can be extremely diffuse, but if there's a problem I want to solve (that's challenging but just within reach of my abilities) then I have no problem grinding away at it.

I'm pretty sure Dewey covered that, but it's been a while (I'm getting myself back into pragmatism so it could become a more common topic here).

I like this notion of “voyages of discovery.” I encourage you to expand on it. It is something I recognize from my own experience, but I don't think I've seen it written about before. It deserves some analysis. For instance this is the only way I learn programming languages; I've never learned one from a book and I'm not sure I could. Once I have a project in mind, I learn what I need to, and once I've learned that, I start thinking of other things I could do; but I've never sat down to “learn a programming language.” I do read books about programming, but only on an abstract level. But then it's impossible to learn a natural language this way: I've tried and failed more than once. The grind seems to be necessary.

After going through it again I think the title is the only place that indicates Lessig is “against transparency.” He's saying that transparency isn't going to be the answer in itself, it's part of the solution (and correlation=causation is an actual bias that occurs, not just a possible one: look at how the Republican fringe has latched onto the sketchiest bits of information to try discrediting Obama)– and then we have a lot of work on further reforms:

When transparency and democracy are considered in this way, we may even permit ourselves to imagine a way out of this cycle of cynicism.

The media & music section illustrated the “cycle of cynicism” in which people invested in past models resist by trying to control things — which they won't be able to do, and that just makes things worse.

The point I get from Lessig (on third reading) is the same as mine: there are no simple answers, everyone needs to work on constructive dialog.

Lessig's essay came up in discussion with a couple of associates last month. Here's a 'reprint” of part of that discussion:

I read the Lessig essay last night. It doesn’t seem to have much by way of valid argument. As far as I can tell his whole argument breaks down like this:

Transparency is a good value to hold. But people are dumb and jump to conclusions and don’t have the attention span to consider the facts. So let’s not be transparent QED. I realize this may skip over some of the subtleties but that’s what I got out of it.

Personally I think his argument is moot – because the data by itself MAY lead to false conclusions is not a valid reason to limit transparency – because we all agree on the evils that a lack of transparency does ACTUALLY entail. In any balanced decision making process that entails risk I'd say that actual negatives always trump potential ones as things to avoid unless the potential has a high chance of being realized and has devastating consequences attached to it.

I found the discussion in the comments on the original article more enlightening than the piece itself – ie: if we restructure how financing works for politicians then there is no need for oversight because the need for transparency in financing disappears. That’s just one example.

Just curious – what do you think his digression into the internet destroying the business model for local media and the music industry has to do with anything? Didn’t seem relevant to the discussion on transparency – looked like an odd and out of context rant to me.