Learning through Adversity

Economics, as a science, can only advance if it takes on the hard questions.

Learning is a theme on this blog as I started the conversation here talking about how to best improve as a writer. Knowing very precisely how bad one is as a writer helps to outline what needs to be done in order to progress. The more potential for progress the more inadequate one feels. This even translates to mind-numbing feelings of inadequacy, at times. It was for this reason that I chose the title, "off-the-cuff" and the German word unvorbereitet for unprepared or extemporaneous. Acknowledgement of short-comings removes one of the biggest obstacles to learning.

Economics has developed a fetish as a hand-maiden to political power. There is always an economist that can back your basic story and conveniently we, as a profession, have access to statistics that can remove criticism beyond the ability of a casual observer. Being certain pays in the marketplace of ideas and quantity supply increases. At GMU we questioned methodological barriers to entry because, like all barriers, it prevents true competition. It has remained my instinct to avoid the assertion of expertise or those that think they are done learning. Rather, I am careful to see knowledge from a particular angle with almost debilitating numbers of caveats.

The longer that I spend in the academy, the more I understand that time is scarce. Energy is scarce. Who can both succeed as a professional and be clear about the limitations of science? It makes me appreciate the value of folks like Matt Ridley and Richard Dawkins who are privately funded as advocates of popularizing science. I am now familiar a few books by both authors and am impressed with the energy they bring to their sciences and the crusader's will to discover what it takes to teach their subjects. After all, what impact does science have on society if its central tenets are misunderstood and the consumers have no avenue to decode them?

I can't help but be frustrated, however, with what I see as a willingness on the part of the standard professor to assert expertise over a whole variety of topics, but to not admit to their students the real deficiencies in their own depth in these subjects. Professors that pull it off well, that is distinguishing where they are experts and where they lack expertise, are loved by their students. The student humanizes the pursuit of knowledge only when you tell them that, like you, they are beginning a search or a journey of the mind.

The academy rewards self-confidence, but the search for truth only rewards humility. How can we teach this lesson to our students? More importantly, what are we doing to remember this lesson?