The paradox of public discourse

An astute observation in The Paranoid Style in Economics by Raghuram Rajan.

All of this implies that economic policymakers require an enormous dose of humility, openness to various alternatives (including the possibility that they might be wrong), and a willingness to experiment. This does not mean that our economic knowledge cannot guide us, only that what works in theory – or worked in the past or elsewhere – should be prescribed with an appropriate degree of self-doubt.

But, for economists who actively engage the public, it is hard to influence hearts and minds by qualifying one’s analysis and hedging one’s prescriptions. Better to assert one’s knowledge unequivocally, especially if past academic honors certify one’s claims of expertise. This is not an entirely bad approach if it results in sharper public debate.

The dark side of such certitude, however, is the way it influences how these economists engage contrary opinions. How do you convince your passionate followers if other, equally credentialed, economists take the opposite view? All too often, the path to easy influence is to impugn the other side’s motives and methods, rather than recognizing and challenging an opposing argument’s points. Instead of fostering public dialogue and educating the public, the public is often left in the dark. And it discourages younger, less credentialed economists from entering the public discourse.

The paradox is this - You are a knowledgeable individual with experience and knowledge to contribute to the public discourse on some matter. To influence the public debate you have to break through the noise and distractions of public discourse. To break through you have to have a simple and stark claim. With simple and stark claims you lose nuance and accuracy. Without nuance and accuracy you can engage in the conversation but primarily by attacking and rebutting other similarly indefensible claims.