Robbie George on expressive individualism; Randall Bock and me on finding truth; Rob Henderson is part of Jordan Peterson's academy; Tyler Cowen on mainstream economics
Regarding expressive individualism, the atomized self has been the ideal of the Progressives, as it was of the other revolutionaries of the 20th century, who see intermediary institutions as standing in the way of their utopian dreams. For them, the ideal society is that composed of the state (controlled by them) on the one hand, and the isolated individual on the other. The great conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet's book The Quest For Community is the book to read.
I think this can be misinterpreted. "[T]he other revolutionaries of the 20th century" did not want atomized individuals. That's what they accused capitalism of doing. They wanted everyone working together, in one communal project, finding meaning and purpose in the good of society. There is a reason one of those ideologies was called communism.
Re: "So in terms of economic ideas, there are no $20 bills on the sidewalk waiting to be picked up."
There are plenty of $20 bills on the sidewalk, namely, *neglected* economic ideas. For example, an economist might neglect the Coase Theorem whereas a physicist can't ignore basic ideas.
There are two very different conceptions of what "the Coase Theorem" is. The first, as set out in Coase's "The Nature of Social Cost" is that, in the absence of transaction costs, and ignoring distributional effects, it doesn't matter who has the legal right. Whoever values it most will either buy it or keep it, and the final result will be the same no matter who starts out with the right. E.g., a railroad with the right to shower sparks on a farmer's field will keep it if the farmer won't offer more to him than what it is worth to the RR, but will sell it if the farmer does. One of the implications of Coase's analysis is that transaction costs are often significant.
The second conception says that the world is like the "if" statement above, that transaction costs can be ignored. An economist might often "neglect" that idea because he thought it was false. It's actually kind of similar to how a physicist will neglect air resistance when thinking about motion in outer space but take it into account when calculating the descent of a feather.
I was going to comment the same thing. Economics has plenty of great ideas, just they never get put into practice because people have a distaste for markets.
My apologies if Dr. Kling has previously addressed this topic in earlier work, but it strikes me that perhaps his network-based university (NBU) is not so different from what higher education was like in the American revolutionary era. Perhaps it might be worthwhile recalling for a moment the great men like William Small & George Wythe, John Witherspoon, William Livingston, Joseph Mayhew & Jeremiah Gridley, and George Wythe who were the essential network nodes in the educational and ideological development of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Adams, and John Marshall respectively. And perhaps Dr. Kling might consider whether “faculty” is the most apt label for persons in roles so very different that what is presently connoted by the term. If a reversion to “tutor,” the commonly used colonial label for such mentor/educator/ and frequently employer, then perhaps reverting even further back to use of “master” which was the commonly used titele for instructors at early European universities, would capture the essence of the Klingian vision of that role? (Despite the connotations with slavery, it is probable that much of the hate, rage, and anti-populist hysteria of the highly insecure and neurotic credentialed class would be placated if my fellow plebeians and I simply addressed our betters individually as “my most serene and all-knowing master” thereby solving the polarization problem as well.)
Perhaps William Small is the colonial educator who best embodies this role of a master as envisioned by Dr. Kling. Small, a Scot, oversaw Thomas Jefferson’s time at William & Mary. Wikipedia summarizes the their relationship concisely:
“Jefferson entered the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, in 1761, at the age of eighteen, and studied mathematics, metaphysics, and philosophy with William Small. Under Small's tutelage, Jefferson encountered the ideas of the British Empiricists, including John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton. Small introduced Jefferson to George Wythe and Francis Fauquier. Small, Wythe, and Fauquier recognized Jefferson as a man of exceptional ability and included him in their inner circle, where he became a regular member of their Friday dinner parties. Jefferson later wrote that, while there, he ‘heard more common good sense, more rational & philosophical conversations than in all the rest of my life’.”
Jefferson graduated the next year in 1762 and Small’s introduction landed Jefferson a legal clerk position with George Whythe under whom he read the law, becoming a member of the Virginia bar in 1767. So in about 5 years, Jefferson completed both his undergraduate and professional education. Of course, Jefferson had begun studying Latin, Greek, and French at age 9 and had also studied classics and science under the notable minister James Maury for two years who apparently also had an important influence upon him.
So it would seem that Jefferson had an educational experience that seems not dissimilar to what Dr. Kling envisions. Rather than go through the additional similarities of each of the individuals listed above, in the interest of brevity, I will simply jump ahead to the somewhat different example of John Marshall, the chief justice of the supreme court much celebrated by the legal guild for his cleverness. As a youth, Marshall had a year of formal education in an academy. Biography.com tells us that his professional education was of a similar duration: “In 1780, Marshall studied law by attending a series of Judge George Wythe's lectures at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia — the only formal legal education that Marshall would receive — and soon obtained a firm grasp on English common law. That same year, he was admitted to the Virginia bar and began his own legal practice.” Perhaps home-schooling and autodidactism ought not foreclose entry into every profession, and simple objective examinations of competence suffice? After all, educational credentials these days are rarely sufficient for practice and professional certification, mostly based upon the passing of simple, objective examinations, is increasingly required in all manner of occupations.
Indeed, studies suggest that over a quarter of undergraduate degrees and over 40 percent of masters degrees awarded represent a negative return on investment, meaning that these graduates will not enjoy increased earnings over an extended time period sufficient to offset the price paid for the credential. And recognizing that the American health, legal, education, and social services industries produce outcomes wholly inferior to those enjoyed by residents of the advanced nations, radical reform throughout might seem warranted. Thwarting the ongoing plunder of the population by our most serene and all-knowing credentialed class through a revolution returning us simpler, less devious institutions, might not be a completely bad policy alternative to consider.
Re: "But I think of education as something other than consuming content by watching videos."
A necessary element of education: The student must (a) use the content or (b) reckon with the content with the teacher or fellow students. Education requires application or dialogue. Excellent students achieve practical mastery or mutual understanding. Creativity is a natural by-product.
Re: "or we could under censor it … people could believe crazy things and conspiracy theories."
At the risk of being misunderstood, let me point out that conspiracy theories (and perhaps even some kooky ones?) can play a positive role in "the information ecosystem" insofar as they encourage some people *to dig deeper.*
For example, if I understand correctly, a non-kooky conspiracy theory motivated some people to investigate and eventually reveal authoritarian censorious behavior of public-health authorities (Collins, Fauci) towards the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration.
My intuition is that it is unwise to censor conspiracy theories. Such theories sometimes motivate people to dig deeper and thereby help discovery. In principle, whether a particular conspiracy theory is likely to do more harm than good is an empirical question. In practice, often it is hard to know the answer ex ante, before the deeper dig that the particular theory might motivate.
What are the counter-arguments in favor of censorship of conspiracy theories?
Regarding expressive individualism, the atomized self has been the ideal of the Progressives, as it was of the other revolutionaries of the 20th century, who see intermediary institutions as standing in the way of their utopian dreams. For them, the ideal society is that composed of the state (controlled by them) on the one hand, and the isolated individual on the other. The great conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet's book The Quest For Community is the book to read.
I think this can be misinterpreted. "[T]he other revolutionaries of the 20th century" did not want atomized individuals. That's what they accused capitalism of doing. They wanted everyone working together, in one communal project, finding meaning and purpose in the good of society. There is a reason one of those ideologies was called communism.
They purportedly wanted community, but in fact accomplished the opposite.
A tale as old as time.
Thanks for the pointer to Nesbit's book.
Re: "So in terms of economic ideas, there are no $20 bills on the sidewalk waiting to be picked up."
There are plenty of $20 bills on the sidewalk, namely, *neglected* economic ideas. For example, an economist might neglect the Coase Theorem whereas a physicist can't ignore basic ideas.
There are two very different conceptions of what "the Coase Theorem" is. The first, as set out in Coase's "The Nature of Social Cost" is that, in the absence of transaction costs, and ignoring distributional effects, it doesn't matter who has the legal right. Whoever values it most will either buy it or keep it, and the final result will be the same no matter who starts out with the right. E.g., a railroad with the right to shower sparks on a farmer's field will keep it if the farmer won't offer more to him than what it is worth to the RR, but will sell it if the farmer does. One of the implications of Coase's analysis is that transaction costs are often significant.
The second conception says that the world is like the "if" statement above, that transaction costs can be ignored. An economist might often "neglect" that idea because he thought it was false. It's actually kind of similar to how a physicist will neglect air resistance when thinking about motion in outer space but take it into account when calculating the descent of a feather.
I was going to comment the same thing. Economics has plenty of great ideas, just they never get put into practice because people have a distaste for markets.
My apologies if Dr. Kling has previously addressed this topic in earlier work, but it strikes me that perhaps his network-based university (NBU) is not so different from what higher education was like in the American revolutionary era. Perhaps it might be worthwhile recalling for a moment the great men like William Small & George Wythe, John Witherspoon, William Livingston, Joseph Mayhew & Jeremiah Gridley, and George Wythe who were the essential network nodes in the educational and ideological development of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Adams, and John Marshall respectively. And perhaps Dr. Kling might consider whether “faculty” is the most apt label for persons in roles so very different that what is presently connoted by the term. If a reversion to “tutor,” the commonly used colonial label for such mentor/educator/ and frequently employer, then perhaps reverting even further back to use of “master” which was the commonly used titele for instructors at early European universities, would capture the essence of the Klingian vision of that role? (Despite the connotations with slavery, it is probable that much of the hate, rage, and anti-populist hysteria of the highly insecure and neurotic credentialed class would be placated if my fellow plebeians and I simply addressed our betters individually as “my most serene and all-knowing master” thereby solving the polarization problem as well.)
Perhaps William Small is the colonial educator who best embodies this role of a master as envisioned by Dr. Kling. Small, a Scot, oversaw Thomas Jefferson’s time at William & Mary. Wikipedia summarizes the their relationship concisely:
“Jefferson entered the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, in 1761, at the age of eighteen, and studied mathematics, metaphysics, and philosophy with William Small. Under Small's tutelage, Jefferson encountered the ideas of the British Empiricists, including John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton. Small introduced Jefferson to George Wythe and Francis Fauquier. Small, Wythe, and Fauquier recognized Jefferson as a man of exceptional ability and included him in their inner circle, where he became a regular member of their Friday dinner parties. Jefferson later wrote that, while there, he ‘heard more common good sense, more rational & philosophical conversations than in all the rest of my life’.”
Jefferson graduated the next year in 1762 and Small’s introduction landed Jefferson a legal clerk position with George Whythe under whom he read the law, becoming a member of the Virginia bar in 1767. So in about 5 years, Jefferson completed both his undergraduate and professional education. Of course, Jefferson had begun studying Latin, Greek, and French at age 9 and had also studied classics and science under the notable minister James Maury for two years who apparently also had an important influence upon him.
So it would seem that Jefferson had an educational experience that seems not dissimilar to what Dr. Kling envisions. Rather than go through the additional similarities of each of the individuals listed above, in the interest of brevity, I will simply jump ahead to the somewhat different example of John Marshall, the chief justice of the supreme court much celebrated by the legal guild for his cleverness. As a youth, Marshall had a year of formal education in an academy. Biography.com tells us that his professional education was of a similar duration: “In 1780, Marshall studied law by attending a series of Judge George Wythe's lectures at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia — the only formal legal education that Marshall would receive — and soon obtained a firm grasp on English common law. That same year, he was admitted to the Virginia bar and began his own legal practice.” Perhaps home-schooling and autodidactism ought not foreclose entry into every profession, and simple objective examinations of competence suffice? After all, educational credentials these days are rarely sufficient for practice and professional certification, mostly based upon the passing of simple, objective examinations, is increasingly required in all manner of occupations.
Indeed, studies suggest that over a quarter of undergraduate degrees and over 40 percent of masters degrees awarded represent a negative return on investment, meaning that these graduates will not enjoy increased earnings over an extended time period sufficient to offset the price paid for the credential. And recognizing that the American health, legal, education, and social services industries produce outcomes wholly inferior to those enjoyed by residents of the advanced nations, radical reform throughout might seem warranted. Thwarting the ongoing plunder of the population by our most serene and all-knowing credentialed class through a revolution returning us simpler, less devious institutions, might not be a completely bad policy alternative to consider.
Re: "But I think of education as something other than consuming content by watching videos."
A necessary element of education: The student must (a) use the content or (b) reckon with the content with the teacher or fellow students. Education requires application or dialogue. Excellent students achieve practical mastery or mutual understanding. Creativity is a natural by-product.
Re: "or we could under censor it … people could believe crazy things and conspiracy theories."
At the risk of being misunderstood, let me point out that conspiracy theories (and perhaps even some kooky ones?) can play a positive role in "the information ecosystem" insofar as they encourage some people *to dig deeper.*
For example, if I understand correctly, a non-kooky conspiracy theory motivated some people to investigate and eventually reveal authoritarian censorious behavior of public-health authorities (Collins, Fauci) towards the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration.
My intuition is that it is unwise to censor conspiracy theories. Such theories sometimes motivate people to dig deeper and thereby help discovery. In principle, whether a particular conspiracy theory is likely to do more harm than good is an empirical question. In practice, often it is hard to know the answer ex ante, before the deeper dig that the particular theory might motivate.
What are the counter-arguments in favor of censorship of conspiracy theories?