tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post3729229601447362861..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Academic B.S. as artificial barriers to entryNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-84745631792387838322017-05-31T09:19:02.297-04:002017-05-31T09:19:02.297-04:00It is easy to criticise critical theory for being ...It is easy to criticise critical theory for being obscurantist and irrelevant, as this meets a widespread, 'common sense', sentiment that anything too complicated to understand at first reading is not worth knowing. In fact, this disdain often reveals a lack of understanding of what is being said, which in many cases is substantial but subtle. These subtleties are only accessible after years steeped in relevant academic discourses. But outsiders miss them, and judge a text to be tautologous, meaningless twaddle. How quickly this conclusion is drawn, making the step from "I do not really understand anything that is being said here." to "Nothing really is being said here." shows an astounding lack of humility, symptomatic of a wider disdain for the humanities. Imagine the converse case, of arts scholars concluding that some part of mathematics is nonsense. They would rigthly be ridiculed.<br /><br />The other side of the coin of disdain for the humanities is this creeping fetishisation of maths and how 'hard' it is. I personally love maths, and think it can be beautiful and exciting. But it is not far and away the most difficult thing humans can do: it is just one of a number of areas where individual minds have reached the summit of human achievement, along with the arts, philosophy and the sciences. Achieving true excellence in the law, philosophy or sociology is as hard as achieving it in mathematics, as evidenced by the small number of actually excellent people in each of these fields. This does not equate to a claim that all fields are identical in the nature and extent of their deficiencies, or that all disciplines hold a similar share of erroneous claims. Rather, if some disciplines are more prone to error, this will be so because of softer, more ambiguous or more subjective standards of truth. This does not make them worse, but more difficult. Progress and criticism must generally come from inside the discipline: being able to engage with a particular discourse on its own terms is the only proxy we have for genuine understanding of that discourse. Discrediting whole academic disciplines without understanding them betrays mind-numbing arrogance.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02773374205413519467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-38799118681420048632015-12-19T13:03:09.764-05:002015-12-19T13:03:09.764-05:00I defend obscure postmodern writing: http://robert...I defend obscure postmodern writing: http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2015/12/obscure-postmodern-language.htmlRobert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-30009522494136153462015-12-18T17:47:13.697-05:002015-12-18T17:47:13.697-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.mxyzptlkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10079515367923524441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-18420122022398571712015-12-18T17:00:01.927-05:002015-12-18T17:00:01.927-05:00Academics don't need to have thought about the...Academics don't need to have thought about the economics. Noah Smith is simply suggesting that "academic bullshit" will become established and will continue if it leads to more jobs and higher pay. The first fish to crawl out on land didn't think, "Wow, there's so much food up here and no competition. I'm going to leave lots of descendants." But that's what happened.<br /><br />That, of course, doesn't explain which academic b.s. will be most prevalent at any given time. Your second paragraph goes a way towards that.Roger Sweenyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12734128265493099062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-9460981518442124932015-12-18T16:23:07.105-05:002015-12-18T16:23:07.105-05:00If that is the definition of indoctrination, then ...If that is the definition of indoctrination, then most of college physics is indoctrination. Roger Sweenyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12734128265493099062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-44203592764616484152015-12-18T14:11:38.651-05:002015-12-18T14:11:38.651-05:00"British social science is more jargony, cete..."British social science is more jargony, ceteris parabis, than American social science."<br /><br />Couldn't disagree more.Old Odd Jobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239083003799351747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-81295634413938298572015-12-18T13:49:08.520-05:002015-12-18T13:49:08.520-05:00Making assertions and posting them on a crappy blo...Making assertions and posting them on a crappy blog does not make them true. It is clear that you know nothing about economics.I am Responding to an Idiotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-21162671008000784272015-12-18T13:41:10.865-05:002015-12-18T13:41:10.865-05:00Your post, which references BS from Noah Smith, co...Your post, which references BS from Noah Smith, could be seen as a proper illustration of just how insignificant you are in economic science. Until you go away, we'll just keep accumulating data points to that effect.I am Responding to an Idiotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-56206306139049246412015-12-18T12:59:51.184-05:002015-12-18T12:59:51.184-05:00tldr: Post-modern gibberish is actually just like ...tldr: Post-modern gibberish is actually just like physics because terms and stuffOld Odd Jobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239083003799351747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-83282148053340875542015-12-18T12:57:40.795-05:002015-12-18T12:57:40.795-05:00Yes, the Sokal affair was a cheap shot. Anyone can...Yes, the Sokal affair was a cheap shot. Anyone can get published in a Chemistry journal, for example. Just use a bunch of weird chemistry jargon and no-one will know the difference! Sokal was being unfair to the fragile post-modernist professors who are society's true victims, in a way. <br /><br />I have been primed by my education to write concisely and detect B.S when it shows up. You clearly have not.Old Odd Jobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239083003799351747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-1305156527743312412015-12-18T12:47:50.115-05:002015-12-18T12:47:50.115-05:00Thank you, that was needed and articulate. Agree w...Thank you, that was needed and articulate. Agree wholeheartedly. (Let me add that the Sokol affair was a cheap shot--not entirely unnecessary, and not entirely undeserved, but a cheap shot nonetheless, and that whole affair was totally oversimplified by just about everyone.) <br /><br />I think part of the trap that Noah falls into (and not for the first time) is the horrific organization of the humanities and social sciences, and from there their balkanization. If the humanities and social sciences were organized like the natural sciences--by levels of organization--then economists couldn't retreat from the many valid criticisms (theoretical, empirical, etc.) that others raise--and vice versa. As it stands, people in disciplines and subdisciplines and interdisciplinary fields can always retreat to home turf, where--as you say--they have a better understanding of the various texts and vocabularies and language games involved. We get this in the freshwater-saltwater split in economics; postmodernists versus positivists in other social sciences (and woe to those of us who try to transcend that divide, sometimes); etc. Sometimes what I see as "obfuscation" is a deep discussion in the different language of that subfield; sometimes it really is obfuscation; sometimes it is other scholars fooling themselves. Parsing it all out with side commentary not well grounded in knowing the real state of that subfield won't really help things.<br /><br />Noah has, at times, called out economists--although if he really wanted to put in the honest effort, he could go much further than he has (or has Romer, for that matter). "Jargon" can be really important for conceptualization--what we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence (not always a good thing)--and nothing in Critical Theory or postmodernism is as difficult to grasp as the IUPAC system for organic chemistry (and has anyone gone after THAT mess--albeit a useful mess)? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-76488897573730798052015-12-18T09:43:07.227-05:002015-12-18T09:43:07.227-05:00IQ has a couple components; working memory is a k...IQ has a couple components; working memory is a key part of it, but not everything; there is a fairly good literature on the subject.David Manheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15581581397748282780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-76844444962499261182015-12-18T09:40:00.591-05:002015-12-18T09:40:00.591-05:00I don't really buy the idea that the humanitie...I don't really buy the idea that the humanities are more obscurantist than other domains (or that Frankfurt School derived parts of the humanities are especially obscurantist), for a couple reasons.<br /><br />I don't deny that there are obscurantist elements, or elements of shibboleth, or that neologisms are used. In fact, I would make the argument that neologisms are used more often than is strictly necessary for the ostensible content. However, this is normal: we use neologisms as shibboleth outside the humanities as well, and we furthermore use specialized vocabulary to add nuance. "Baudrillardian" and "Ballardian" have different meanings to someone who has read Baudrillard and Ballard, in the same way that "Orwellian" has a different meaning to someone who has read both 1984 and Animal Farm than it does to someone who only understands the term from cultural osmosis. <br /><br />Your writing in the post is, of course, full of terms that act as shibboleth -- but they are shibboleth for a different community. You don't have to be a Marxist to understand the nuances of the writing in critical theory, but it helps to have read Marx (and to have read other formative works) in order to recognize when a reference is being made, in precisely the same way that it helps to recognize the original context of the phrases "a body in motion" or "spooky action at a distance" (which, after all, are rich in history and metaphor and nuance and are not exact, minimal, or precise summaries of the math they ultimately describe) -- or for that matter, to understand the semi-jocular way in which someone might say "billions and billions". <br /><br />For that matter, it helps for readers reading your post to understand that, ultimately, you are talking to an audience that has been primed by Feynman and by the Skokal Affair to consider everything other than physics to be varying degrees of abstract and unfalsifiable navel-gazing wank; someone without that particular set of assumptions is unlikely to find the suggestion that the passages you quote are obscure to be believable.<br /><br />The style used in the fields you criticize says several things on several levels. On the most literal level, it explains the author's point. One level down, it indicates the author's familiarity with his or her proximate sources. One level below that, it indicates the author's familiarity with foundational texts -- and this is also normal in the sciences (it's the equivalent of using "F=ma" rather than substituting completely new variables each time: you can assume readers are familiar with "F=ma" and so you save time in explaining the meaning of each variable and the function of the equation; likewise "the author is dead" or "there is no X under late capitalism" or "deferance" are indications that the reader should consult his or her knowledge of certain foundational texts and use that to interpret the current work). Finally, there are indications that the author understands and is willing to work within the norms of the academic culture. Again, your post does this: the only purpose of the post is to signal that you are in line with the ideological norm of having contempt for the writing style of Frankfurt School derived theorists, because the post contains no information that is new to the intended audience (other than the implicit acknowledgement that you agree with its content, which could be expected but not predicted with complete accuracy from other variables).John Ohnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352441770252592928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-70155192896368167212015-12-18T09:37:12.138-05:002015-12-18T09:37:12.138-05:00"Presumably, no one here would expect a human..."Presumably, no one here would expect a humanities PhD to determine whether an economic theory paper is accurate or useful."<br /><br />I would. I would expect that a humanities PhD could understand any well put together piece of prose, with mathematical and empirical support. The fact that word limits and obscurantism in economics makes such clear prose rare is an indictment of economics as a profession, to some extent.David Manheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15581581397748282780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-32362674395043148922015-12-18T08:18:46.814-05:002015-12-18T08:18:46.814-05:00I reckon people just presumed it was on the wane g...I reckon people just presumed it was on the wane given the Sokal hoax etcOld Odd Jobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239083003799351747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-90247207044797050912015-12-18T06:07:05.536-05:002015-12-18T06:07:05.536-05:00You certainly have some agreeable opinions and vie...You certainly have some agreeable opinions and views. Your blog provides a fresh look at the subject.<br /><a title=" Intraday Stock Tips " href="http://www.capitalstars.com/intraday-stock-futures" rel="nofollow"> Intraday Stock Tips </a>Pooja Pariyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01474862718574432345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-17888568725732229652015-12-18T04:29:16.035-05:002015-12-18T04:29:16.035-05:00It is quite funny when Feynman mocks people callin...It is quite funny when Feynman mocks people calling reading for visual communication to individual members of the community with symbolic means.<br /><br />But in mathematics we say that a function from A to B is a subset R \subset A x B such that for all a in A there is a b in B such that (a,b) is in R, and for any (a,b),(a',b') in R we have that a=a' implies b=b'.<br /><br />Feynman enters: haha, you just say that a function can take any value and spit out a unique value.<br /><br />While he is correct, the function definition is not pointless. Mathematicians frequently struggled around the definition of a function before someone cared to write it down. <br /><br />When someone in humanities talks about reading as symbolic communication, it *could* be because they consider reading as one instantiation of a broader class of communication, where it is relevant to distinguish between symbolic and non-symbolic communication. For example, the degree of symbolism in communication is important to whether the communication is relevant only to an in-group or to an out-group.<br /><br />In Economics, we have countless examples of making concepts more abstract and removed from everyday experience, which in the end gives us much stronger explanatory power in everyday experience (for example, conceptualizing assets as state-contingent claims is a bit weird, but very smart).<br /><br />Take-away is that it is silly to take a sentence or even a paper, say that it can be written more easily, and dismiss the enterprise as obscurantist. Sure, many postmodernists *are* obscurantist, but here I trust the judgement of insiders more (like Foucault's dismissal of Derrida) as it must be more a holistic judgment than citing a text and laughing. The laughing exercise could be done in good mathematics, physics and economics without any problems.Hannes Malmberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13444999183543306493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-24996021377922044502015-12-18T04:26:08.872-05:002015-12-18T04:26:08.872-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Hannes Malmberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13444999183543306493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-32449122035175185502015-12-17T22:28:56.924-05:002015-12-17T22:28:56.924-05:00Good one. Good one. Narianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-30387319888115717802015-12-17T22:00:50.053-05:002015-12-17T22:00:50.053-05:00That's nice to see.That's nice to see. Jiami Jianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-1733052966343712822015-12-17T18:51:18.777-05:002015-12-17T18:51:18.777-05:00Don't be worried about making Brad mad. He...Don't be worried about making Brad mad. He's a defender of the elites.<br /><br />His elite friends caused the financial housing bubble and subsequent collapse.<br /><br />He's the last person anyone should listen to.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-38490190853921955642015-12-16T17:44:58.928-05:002015-12-16T17:44:58.928-05:00Here is a paper (gated): http://dio.sagepub.com/co...Here is a paper (gated): http://dio.sagepub.com/content/58/1-2/159.extract <br />Øysteinhttp://oeysteinmhernaes.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-18487959639353705932015-12-16T16:25:28.334-05:002015-12-16T16:25:28.334-05:00@Krzys You really need to get out more. Read Ameri...@Krzys You really need to get out more. Read American Historical Review, for example, and come back and talk.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-59458271867978438442015-12-16T16:15:33.924-05:002015-12-16T16:15:33.924-05:00Should we be also asking Astrologists for their op...Should we be also asking Astrologists for their opinion of their own contribution? The question is: is there any evidence current humanities "research" has anything to do with knowledge? Not necessarily scientific one? Is there more there than self-referential BS? if so, how would we know?Krzyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15794655390770135247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-20650294905042276452015-12-16T12:41:23.587-05:002015-12-16T12:41:23.587-05:00You have missed a trick. LAW is also not rocket sc...You have missed a trick. LAW is also not rocket science and there is a steady supply of unhappy lawyers who want to go back into teaching. The legal academy has always used credentials as a screening mechanism -- for instance law review editorships and clerking on the Supreme Court. Nowadays they expect prospective hires to have written a serious article at least in draft form, which is no picnic if you are billing 2500 hours a year in a law firm at the same time.<br /><br />The legal academy too had a period of critical legal studies, starting in the late 70s, but CLS is in a serious decline. Many CLS'ers were denied tenure; young faculty who figured out that CLS is not a good career choice if you want tenure started writing other stuff. The marketability of CLS depends entirely on the left vs right political orientation of a law school faculty. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com