Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Closed Minds Problem
...Obviously this isnt just a story about economics; it covers everything from climate science and evolution to Bill OReillys personal history. But that in itself is telling: academic economics, which still has pretenses of being an arena of open intellectual inquiry, appears to be deeply infected with politicization.
So what should those of us who really wanted to be part of what we thought this enterprise was about do? Thats the question Brad DeLong has been asking.
I see three choices:
1. Continue to write and speak as if we were still having a genuine intellectual dialogue, in the hope that politeness and persistence will make the pretense come true. I think thats one way to understand Olivier Blanchards now somewhat infamous 2008 paper on the state of macro; he was, you could argue, trying to appeal to the better angels of freshwater nature. The trouble with this strategy, however, is that it can end up legitimizing work that doesnt deserve respect and there is also a tendency to let your own work get distorted as you try to find common ground where none exists.
2. Point out the wrongness, but quietly and politely. This has the virtue of being honest, and useful to anyone who reads it. But nobody will.
3. Point out the wrongness in ways designed to grab readers attention with ridicule where appropriate, with snark, and with names attached. This will get read; it will get you some devoted followers, and a lot of bitter enemies. One thing it wont do, however, is change any of those closed minds.
So is there a reason I go for door #3, other than simply telling the truth and having some fun while Im at it? Yes because the point is not to convince Rick Santelli or Allan Meltzer that they are wrong, which is never going to happen. It is, instead, to deter other parties from false equivalence. Inflation cultists cant be moved; but reporters and editors who tend to put out views-differ-on-shape-of-planet stories because they think its safe can be, sometimes, deterred if you show that they are lending credence to charlatans. And this in turn can gradually move the terms of discussion, possibly even pushing the nonsense out of the Overton window.
And the inflation-cult story is, I think, a prime example. Yes, you still get coverage treating both sides as equivalent but not nearly as consistently as in the past. When Paul hyperinflation-in-the-Hamptons Singer complains about the Krugmanization of the media, who have the impudence to point out that the inflation he and his friends kept predicting never materialized, thats a sign that were getting somewhere.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/the-closed-minds-problem/
So what should those of us who really wanted to be part of what we thought this enterprise was about do? Thats the question Brad DeLong has been asking.
I see three choices:
1. Continue to write and speak as if we were still having a genuine intellectual dialogue, in the hope that politeness and persistence will make the pretense come true. I think thats one way to understand Olivier Blanchards now somewhat infamous 2008 paper on the state of macro; he was, you could argue, trying to appeal to the better angels of freshwater nature. The trouble with this strategy, however, is that it can end up legitimizing work that doesnt deserve respect and there is also a tendency to let your own work get distorted as you try to find common ground where none exists.
2. Point out the wrongness, but quietly and politely. This has the virtue of being honest, and useful to anyone who reads it. But nobody will.
3. Point out the wrongness in ways designed to grab readers attention with ridicule where appropriate, with snark, and with names attached. This will get read; it will get you some devoted followers, and a lot of bitter enemies. One thing it wont do, however, is change any of those closed minds.
So is there a reason I go for door #3, other than simply telling the truth and having some fun while Im at it? Yes because the point is not to convince Rick Santelli or Allan Meltzer that they are wrong, which is never going to happen. It is, instead, to deter other parties from false equivalence. Inflation cultists cant be moved; but reporters and editors who tend to put out views-differ-on-shape-of-planet stories because they think its safe can be, sometimes, deterred if you show that they are lending credence to charlatans. And this in turn can gradually move the terms of discussion, possibly even pushing the nonsense out of the Overton window.
And the inflation-cult story is, I think, a prime example. Yes, you still get coverage treating both sides as equivalent but not nearly as consistently as in the past. When Paul hyperinflation-in-the-Hamptons Singer complains about the Krugmanization of the media, who have the impudence to point out that the inflation he and his friends kept predicting never materialized, thats a sign that were getting somewhere.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/the-closed-minds-problem/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 465 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Closed Minds Problem (Original Post)
phantom power
Feb 2015
OP
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)1. The inflation-mongers never seem to go away.
It's quite bizarre, and occasionally here on DU we'll have someone hyperventilating and assuring us that runaway inflation is just around the corner.
Because so many things really do go in cycles, I'm sure significant inflation will occur again in the future, but I haven't noticed much in the way of real inflation in a long time now.
I was an adult during the inflation of the 1970's, and I haven't seen anything at all like it since.