Tyler Cowen has a great TEDxMidAtlantic talk on the seductive power of stories to distort our view of the world. We compulsive structure our understanding with narratives–there is no point in fighting this–but we can take a light, sceptical approach to these narratives, continually probing them for weaknesses. (Does anyone else see common thread with the self-knowledge of the ancients around which Jane Austen’s writings are structured.) It is great philosophy capturing the economist’s wisdom with none of the dreary pitfalls–a light, open and intelligent sceptical approach to avoiding surprises: i.e., David Hume on a good day.
Yglesias has a bit of a theme running on how people with an optimistic outlook tend to do better because they are primed to exploit opportunities that come their way. Picking up on a Cowen link to a study showing that depressed people tend to see reality more accurately Matt reiterated this point, but it turns out that the situation is more complicated than this as optimists have a better objective grip on reality than pessimists in other respects.
All of which reinforces my anti-realistic, sceptical and optimistic prejudices. Trying to bottle reality is a mugs game–the trick is live in a reality that maximises strategic well-being. That starts from the one thing we all know, that we all don’t want to be unhappy, and we want to make use of our special endowment–our intelligence–to fulfil those needs.
From this it follows that avoiding surprises will be a useful, and so Cowen’s undogmatic scepticism is a powerful aid. Being a sceptical optimist is doubly useful: optimists occupy a happier reality and they are primed to make good use of the opportunities that come their way.
All of which is by way of preparation for David Brooks column today where he discusses the Fort Hood massacre, spending much of the column expressing his understanding of why so much of the reaction was extremely restrained in their handling of the Islamic dimension of the story, the media placing great emphasis on the fact that Hasan was sick member of the armed services put under great strain rather than an evil Islamic terrorist.
Read More »
They Just Don’t Get It
That David Miliband should think that this is an argument for redoubling efforts in Afghanistan says everything about just how hopelessly irrational the policy is and why it is doomed to go the same way as every other Afghan imperial folly. One of the few hopeful signs is that he is repeating the US Afghan Ambassador Eikenberry’s point that the Karzai government wasn’t the reliable partner assumed by McChrystal’s counter-insurgency strategy, and therefore that the US president shouldn’t increase his commitment by fulfilling McChrystal’s request for more troops.
Read More »