This is an excellent point. I won’t argue with it, not even a bit. Although of course I’m curious what you think.
Chess players who train with computers are much stronger for it. They test their intuitions and receive rapid feedback as to what works, simply by running their program. People who learn economics through the blogosphere also receive feedback, especially if they sample dialogue across a number of blogs of differing perspectives. The feedback comes from which arguments other people found convincing. Do the points you wanted to hold firm on, or cede, correspond to the evolution of the dialogue? This feedback is not as accurate as Rybka but it’s an ongoing test of your fluid intelligence and your ability to revise your opinion. Not many outsiders understand what a powerful learning mechanism the blogosphere has set in place.
Source: Tyler Cowen, Marginal Revolution
(via the always great somethingchanged)