Explaining the "Jordan Peterson"

The infamous Jordan Peterson

No one ever accused me of being cutting edge; the closest I ever came was when my daughter said I was "stealthy hip," which was, I think, more an attempt alleviate my sense of dismay about my 
inability to keep up with contemporary trends. But like almost anyone who reads on the internet, earlier this year I came across Jordan Peterson. David Brooks wrote a column about him, and I investigated further. Brooks was generally complimentary, but when I looked into him further, I found Peterson had generated some controversy. I looked deeper. Pankaj Mishra (more or less) labeled Peterson a fascist in the NYRB. On the other hand, I listened to Peterson in discussion with feminist author Camille Paglia, and instead of a brawl, I found it a love-in. Hmm, quite a contrast from Mishra's screed. I listened to Peterson in an enlightening discussion with Iain McGilchrist, of The Master and His Emissary fame (one of the most exceptional books that I've read in recent years). I listened to Peterson interviewed by Russ Roberts on his podcast EconTalk. (Roberts also posted a piece post interview here on Medium.) I watched some videos. I watched the interview with BBC  that was a train wreck of the interviewer's making; Peterson was more composed than I think I would have been under such an attack (ineffective and off-putting as it was). I listened to him discuss his "12 Rules" (I haven't read the book). On the whole, I found him reasonable and persuasive. He is neither the second coming nor the devil incarnate. However, I did learn that he was (as he describes himself) " a classic British liberal" (think John Stuart Mill's On Liberty).  This breed, becoming all too rare, is hard to find these days, having become the target of hunters on both the Right and the Left. Also, Peterson resisted compelled speech. He did not purvey any "hate speech," he simply refused to acquiesce to a requirement to use new pronouns for those who claim no "binary gender."

Gary Lachman, trusted guide

But I've gotten ahead of myself, especially in the last couple of sentences. Until just recently, I hadn't gotten a real hold on what all of the fuss was about. (Mishra's piece was on whole uninformative; he doesn't like Peterson.) So when I saw that Gary Lachman had written a  review of Peterson, I was delighted, and I immediately read it (popping for the magazine price). Lachman has consistently displayed a patient, careful, and sensitive attitude toward ideas that are often esoteric and sometimes downright occult in addition to his consideration of more mainstream intellectual trends. My anticipation was justified. From Lachman's careful review of the circumstances, I've come to the conclusion that Peterson's notoriety, at least among his critics, comes from his critique of postmodernism. And here's where I fear I show my age.

I completed my formal education in 1979--before the wave of European postmodern thought had fully reached American shores. Of course, I've encountered it since then, but only by way of those who have provided what I've found to be devastating critiques. Several works by Ken Wilber and historian Richard Evans's In Defense of History come to mind. Not that postmodernism doesn't have some worthwhile insights but taken to extremes (as its adherents seem intent to do), it collapses under the weight of performative contradictions. As a successor to a more traditional Marxism, it looks weak and shallow, almost trite. Off-springs of postmodern thought, like "cultural appropriation," "identity politics," and "political correctness," each of which might have some validity in some circumstances, are taken to ridiculous extremes. As Lachman explains, Peterson's challenge to some of this, more than the substance of his thought, seems to be the lightning rod for most of the criticism leveled against him. As a classic liberal (a firm belief in free speech), he and those like him are caught between howling (online) mobs from both the left and the right. (Some on the alt-right seem to celebrate him, but it appears that this doesn't come from an understanding of his thought but from the desire poke the postmodern left in the eye.)

Free speech, including (but not limited to) rights under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, presents a vexing set of issues. Anyone who's read judicial opinions about 1st Amendment free speech issues knows how complicated these issues can be. And most speech is not governed by the 1st Amendment (it's not regulated by the government), but standards are a matter of norms; that is, the everyday decisions and actions that we exhibit toward any speech. In fact, all of us are prone to intolerance; free speech and an attendant openness to ideas--even really crappy ideas not to mention worthwhile, consequential ideas--is something that we have to intentionally cultivate. We don't like attacks on our beliefs. Change comes about only slowly and grudgingly. Given half-a-chance, we'll backslide. But the struggle is worth the prize. Sometimes we have to suffer nonsense, and perhaps even vile, to assure that we have the freedom to pursue the truth, challenging as that always is.

So if Peterson is wrong about his psychology, philosophy, or his interpretation of texts, by all means, criticize him. And so if you believe him wrong about his choice of pronouns or even why he's wrong to resist compelled speech, say so, but do it on the merits (if any), not by name-calling, ad hominem attacks, or dismissive branding. As he might say, stand-up straight, pull back your shoulders, and argue your point.

How Adam Smith Can Change Your Life by Russ Roberts

First, an apologia. I haven’t completed reading Adam Smith’s The Theory of the Moral Sentiments. I’m reminded of this when I log into goodreads and it inquires about how I’m progressing. (It’s annoying. "I know, I know.") Right now, it’s on the backburner. But it’s not there because it’s not worthwhile (it is), nor because it’s poorly written (it’s not), but because, as Roberts mentions, it’s written in 18^th century prose that—for all its beauty—can prove challenging to those of us living in the Age of Twitter. 

In addition to all of that, Smith’s Theory of the Moral Sentiments is only one of many of the Great Books that I haven’t completed. I read a lot, but sometimes it seems like climbing an endless mountain. One must cast aside so many worthy candidates to delve into one. If I’m reading The Theory of the Moral Sentiments, I’m not reading Smith’s more famous An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

All of this brings me to an important point: secondary works, commentaries that riff off the original, provide a valuable service when we can’t manage a complete St. John’s-style—original texts only—reading diet. Is reading a commentary as good as delving into the original? No. But it’s better than no exposure at all. It reminds me of going to the Uffizi Gallery in Florence this summer. I did the audio tour, skipping careful examination of many great works, but with limited time—the ultimate scarce resource—it was the way to go. Thus, with secondary works (more than Cliff Notes, of course) you can follow someone like Roberts as he explores Smith’s work. The quality of the guide can vary. But it’s clear that Roberts has put in the time to qualify as our docent.

So why Adam Smith’s Theory of the Moral Sentiments and why via Russ Roberts? First, Smith.

Smith without sunglasses, not in profile

Most recognize Smith as the intellectual father of modern economics via The Wealth of Nations. The “invisible hand” and all that. But The Wealth of Nations was just one end of the spectrum for Smith. His first and last book (in that he revised it up to near the time of his death) is Moral Sentiments. At appears that Smith considered this the more important of the two books. Moral Sentiments deals foremost with our life in face-to-face social circles and how we interact with one another through emotions (“sentiments”). The Wealth of Nations, at the other end, deals more with markets, those places where strangers (at least initially) come together to “truck, barter & exchange”. These insights make Smith one of the founders not just of modern economics, but also of modern social theory that deals with more than just markets.

Russ Roberts, The EconTalker

The other reason that I listened to this book was Russ Roberts. I’ve listened to many episodes of EconTalk that Roberts hosts, and I enjoy it very much. Roberts is a Chicago-trained economist who knows his econ, but he’s also a gracious and inquiring interviewer (his podcast consists of guest interviews). Roberts does a good job, even with guests with whom he disagrees. Not afraid to raise a point of contention, he’s also willing to hear the answer. He provides thoughtful conversation, not entertainment (if you can call people talking past one another entertaining). I sometimes disagree with Roberts, such as on the usefulness of government action (its flaws notwithstanding), on the ability of civil society along to deal appropriately with the mega-institutions of contemporary global capitalism, and on the wisdom and efficacy of sensible Keynesianism*. But I have a strong sense that if we sat down for a chat about politics and economics, we’d both benefit from the conversation, finding more points of agreement than disagreement. Disagreeing without being disagreeable. It’s refreshing.

As to the book itself, it’s a reflection on Smith’s insights into human nature and sociability. Roberts puts Smith’s insights into contemporary contexts and idioms. Smith, despite his bachelor life, developed some terrific insights into how society worked, how people work (their sentiments, emotions), and how people interact. In fact, along with his friend Hume and other members of the Scottish Enlightenment, Smith helped develop theories of sociability and morality that deserve greater consideration. (For the influence of the Scottish Enlightenment on Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, read Garry Wills’s Inventing America. These Scots, more than Locke, provided the intellectual foundations of Jefferson’s thought.) Smith was not an ideologue of individualism—far from it. Instead, he always located the individual within his or her interactions with others. Roberts explores these themes, teasing out their contemporary manifestations and applications. It’s a well-written, entertaining, and enlightening introduction to this neglected aspect of Smith’s work.

My guilt at not having read Moral Sentiments is assuaged by the fact that Roberts, well into a career as an econ professor, admits to having read the work only relatively recently. And now with his book, Roberts has helped take a bit more of my sting of shame away.

Postscript: I listened to this book instead of having read it. It was on my reading list (such a long list and still growing!), but serendipity struck by way of a sale offer on Audible. Listening works well for this book, but I have to say that despite the fine reading, I was disappointed not to have Roberts reading it. After having listened to so many of his podcasts, and with his relaxed manner—not as folksy as Garrison Keillor—but still with an inviting air, it would have been good to have Roberts read it. But as it was, I simply substituted his voice in my head as I listened.

*For a fun example of Roberts’s fairness, watch the brilliant videos of Keynes and Hayek that (among other things) poke fun at the perpetual sense of inferiority that Hayek and Hayekians feel about Keynes, Hayek’s Nobel notwithstanding.

(That is what’s going on, right?) 

Stimulating Thoughts: Sachs v. Krugman

In this corner, Jeff Sachs, Columbia

For someone with a stunning lack of qualifications, I’ve ventured into thinking about a topic of great interest to any modern society: how to manage (or not) an economy that may (or may not) need Keynesian stimulus. As a lightweight, I’ll limit myself to commenting on a fight between two heavyweights. With an audacity not justified by all of 11 credit of hours of economics as an undergraduate, I posted a reply to a tweet by Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia about economic stimulus. 

In this corner, Paul Krugman, Princeton

Sachs has criticized Professor Paul Krugman’s support of stimulus in general and by the Obama Administration in particular. Conversely, Krugman has criticized the Cameron-Osborne austerity policy in Great Britain. Since 2008, according to Krugman, the most of the world has hit a zero-bound limit of interest rates in the latest economic melt-down (2008) that renders monetary policy—the work of the Fed and other central banks—ineffective. Lower interest rates can’t promote growth because the interest rate has effectively hit zero and there remain an insufficient number of takers to boost demand. Krugman argues that when monetary stimulus can no longer work, then it’s time to roll-out the Keynesian fiscal stimulus. To wit, government should spend more, not less (the austerity position).
(And please, I’m interpreting here, so don’t blame Krugman or Sachs for my mistakes.)

Sachs takes a different position. In the dangerously truncated world of Twitter, he wrote:

@SteveGreenleaf Fiscal policy is problematic as counter-cyclical tool in financial panic. Automatic stabilizers good; beyond that, dubious.

In longer (and therefore more trustworthy statements of his thinking), he’s against fiscal stimulus and Krugman’s position on it.  For instance, from this piece in the Huffington Post dated 9 March 2013 that provides a thorough presentation of Sachs’s position, he writes, “the stimulus packages that began in 2009 --which have consisted mainly of temporary tax cuts and transfer payments -- have significantly raised the public debt while doing very little to solve the nation's long-term employment and growth problems.”

I think that the pivotal point in this is Sachs’s reference to “long-term”. Perhaps he chose this instead of “long-run” because it could too easily come up against Keynes’s statement about “the long-run”:

"In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again."

(Quotation taken from Matt Yglesia’s writing at Slate.com)

Herein lays the weakness of the Sachs’s position: Yes, the storm will clear and so we don’t need to take any extraordinary measures (beyond “automatic stabilizers”) to right the economic ship. This position has its merits. By way of analogy, when I have lower GI distress (ahem), do I treat it or do I suffer through it? Having been living abroad and traveling since 2012, I’ve had some (but relatively few) incidents, and when I have, I’ve usually let Nature run its course. No Cipro-bombs and only a little of applying the Imodium brakes. This course of benign neglect is one that I think medical authorities agree with. It allows the body to build and use its own defenses and avoids the side effects of any medication. (Any medication is a poison in the wrong dose or taken at the wrong time.) But if I’d gotten sick enough, I have Cipro in my travel kit. The question is one of judgement about when to treat and when to allow the “automatic stabilizers” to do their work without additional aid (not “stimulus” in this case, thank you). I believe that Dr. Keynes would agree to this treatment protocol. However, I believe that Dr. Sachs might be too parsimonious applying any treatment. For instance, in late 2008 and early 2009, we faced much more—at least potentially—than a “financial panic”. Sometimes—albeit rarely—“do something, do anything” has some merit. Thus, I believe that apply “Dr. Keynes’s Patented Fiscal Stimulus Elixir” an appropriate medicine to treat an economy with depressed “animal spirits” (following a manic phase).  

But the medicine of Keynesian fiscal stimulus does include a measure of potential poison. First, it’s subject to abuse. If a drug, it should be a Schedule 1 controlled substance—highly addictive. Politicians love to use it as an excuse the heat up the economy and thereby curry favor with the electorate It acts like a narcotic: a great rush followed by a crash and the desire for more and more. Politicians in an electoral democracy are always attempting to seduce voters (getting voters drunk on an economic high and then . . . well, you get the idea). Thus, we must be very wary about the use of fiscal stimulus. (For a fun look at this way of looking at Keynesian fiscal stimulus, view this video from Russ Roberts of Econ Talk and his buddies.) 

So should we turn this over the economists, the experts? That, too, has its limits. Economists, taken as whole, suffer from excessive hubris and limited thinking. Some have thought—and this more true of the Keynesian-oriented crowd than the Hayekian-Austrian crowd—that the economy could be managed. But the economy is a complex, dynamical system that is subject to influence, but only in limited, uncertain, and contingent ways. The economy is a like an organism that’s constantly changing in response to its local environment as well as evolving over the long-run. (Isn’t “organism” the best metaphor of an economy?) For instance, the world economy of the 1930s is different from the economy of 2015. We have learned some things (and ignored a great deal as well). Thus, as a general rule, I’d keep “Dr. Keynes’ Fiscal Stimulus Elixir” locked in a cabinet marked “Open Only in Case of Emergency”. 

In the end, I think that Krugman and the Obama Administration were right in promoting the use of fiscal stimulus. I don’t think that it hurt us (in the long-run), and we could have done much worse. And while I’m inclined to believe that Great Britain and Europe would have been better without austerity (although their social safety nets are probably better than those of the U.S.), things are improving (at last in Britain) despite any unnecessary pain. Sooner or later, the storm passes. 

Krugman and Sachs as economists have many greater points of significant agreement than significant differences. Both are important voices of progressivism. And while I think it was time in the wake of 2008 to break out the fiscal stimulus medicine, it’s now time to back off of it as a primary concern and focus instead on a long-term plan along that lines that Sachs has outlined. We in the U.S. need significant work on infrastructure and effective social programs. We need to “live within our means” and keep deficits in check. On the issues of climate change and world poverty Sachs has provided a leading voice in addressing these challenges. These issues, , along with limiting the legalized bribery of campaign finance and reducing the crippling economic inequality that can poison our society and politics, should become the focus of our public policy debate. Both of these heavyweights, whom I admire and from whom I’ve learned a great deal, play an important role in framing and forwarding these concerns. So let the debates continue.

Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two

This blast of a video is the sequel of their initial offering of "Fear the Boom & Bust", and it's a worthy sequel indeed. Of course, it lacks the shock of the original (two of the greatest economists as rappers), but still, when you think of what they're saying, you realize a lot of knowledge and perspective is packed into this video. Russ Roberts of EconTalk, a terrific podcast, is one of the writers and producers, and if you've listened to him as much as I have, you appreciate his ability to address complex concerns on these topics in very approachable ways. You do note that the Hayekians have a bit of a chip on their shoulder, their man's Nobel Prize notwithstanding, but I suppose that's accurate. I've only come appreciate Hayek more of late. I thought (without reading, shame on me) that The Road to Serfdom was some right-wing rant. Unfair. In fact, I like the ending of this video because both of these great economists (who, by the way, wrote in prose primarily and not math) have very important and worthwhile things to say. For me, in a crisis, go Keynesian, but for day-to-day, Hayek's perspective on the disbursement of knowledge and decentralized decision-making is crucial. Cheers to both these fine rappers!

Easterly on Growth, Poverty & Aid

Nerd Alert!

Another podcast that I enjoy is Russ Roberts's EconTalk, which comes out weekly, and has done so since at least 2007. Roberts takes about 1 hour to discuss a topic of interest with economists, political scientists, and others with similar interests about topics in economics and public affairs. The discussion led by Roberts is always interesting, and even when Roberts disagrees with the perspective or contention offered by his guest, he doesn't get on a high horse or simply toot his own horn. He lets his guest talk. Roberts is a part of the blog-crazy economics department at George Mason University, which, I must say, as a group, probably does more to promote and stimulate thinking about economics and public affairs than any other group that I know. For instance, Tyler Cowan and Alex Tarrock's Marginal Revolution comes out of GMU.

Now the podcast: William Easterly of NYU is a major critic of the traditional development aid regime that includes the IMF, the World Bank, Jeffrey Sachs, Bono, and so on. Easterly worked at the World Bank, so he's seen things from the inside. His main contention: aid hasn't worked for several reasons. These reasons include a lack of feedback (market mechanism) to measure success and need; lack of standards, institutions and culture for economic development in the recipient countries; bureaucratic imperatives of the providers that trump the needs of recipients; and corruption among governments receiving or administering aid. Easterly doesn't want to cut billions loose just to fend for themselves or starve. He does recognize gains. He believes, however, that small scale, direct giving (to projects and not necessarily governments) works best.

It's a thought-provoking discussion, and I know that his books have attracted a lot of interest because they attack the reigning paradigm (of which Jeff Sachs is seen as the current intellectual champion). Having read Sachs, this provides another important perspective. The problems are real, and how we address them can prove a matter of life and death, not to mention poverty, disease, and limited life for millions around the world.