Does Cognition Obey Say's Law?
Say’s law is loosely stated as “supply creates its own demand.” Say himself had a slightly different idea, namely, that an increase in the supply of X would lead to an increase in demand for Y (an increase in supply of swimming pools leads to an increase in demand for swimming clothes).
But Say’s law has morphed in our culture to mean that more supply of X leads to more demand for X (an increase in the supply of swimming pools leads to an increase in demand for swimming pools). The more Apple products you see, the more you want them. (Goods and services double as brand advertising; each time you buy something your loyalty gets “stickier.”)
Say’s principle is counter-intuitive as a model, because in Econ 101 Supply and Demand are presented as two different lines, moving in opposite directions! But it’s a great illustration of the law of network effects: since people are imitative creatures, a greater supply of something leads to the perception that it is in great demand, which then becomes self-fulfilling as people want what they imagine others want. “If you build it they will come” is not true on a micro-level, but could be true on a macro level.
Here’s how Say’s law might work in cognition:
I believe A (“the world is weighted towards the good”). Now I have a greater propensity/desire to believe B (people are fundamentally good) and C (if people do bad things it’s because of some social ill, but it’s never their fault and D (there is no free will).
The more I expose myself to a belief (experts are corrupt, scientists are ruled primarily by self-interest), and other people who believe it, even one I disagree with, the more I am likely to believe it.
Everyone says belief Y is horrible and/or stupid. But the supply of attention creates demand for more attention, which can eventually be converted into positive attention, hence the expression “no publicity is bad publicity,” and hence the movement to “deplatform” toxic views. If exposure to something, even when it’s framed as negative can backfire, the most effective response is ignorance, not debate or grandstanding. (Before there was “cancel culture,” The Vilna Gaon refused to meet with founders of the Hasidic movement, lest the meeting itself be seen as endorsement.)
As these suggestions indicate, Say’s law is neutral regarding the nature of the content—it hardly matters whether the content is correct or incorrect, adaptive or maladaptive, conspiratorial or socially acceptable.
Two questions:
Do you agree that Say’s Law can explain some aspects of cognition? What are the practical and tactical implications of Say’s Law for how you manage your information diet and/or think about free speech, education, and public discourse?