Betraying the Profession: Boks Takes on Summers

(Yesterdays NY Times article on Larry Summers has lured Dr. Edgeworth Boks from his tenure-induced opiate-haze. The following are Dr. Boks' comments on the Summers controversy.)

Harvard President Larry Summers' remark about a possible relationship between gender and math/science aptitude--the casual mention of a hypothesis for which there is modest evidence but which has neither been proven nor refuted--would not be inappropriate at an institution of higher learning.

It was inappropriate, however, at Harvard.

(And Princeton, Yale, and MIT, according the the presidents of these institutions.)

Summers should be roundly criticized for his remarks. There are things one simply doesn't say. Any deviation from what enlightened persons wish to believe--any attempt to base intellectual inquiry on evidence or to open one's mind to unpopular possibilities--must be avoided if one is to maintain one's reputation among the right kinds of people. One's primary purpose as president of a major university is to indulge intellectual prejudice wherever one finds it, to stroke the egos of wildly impassioned ideologues who care not a fig for evidence, and to be polite to academics. Truth, evidence, honest inquiry, the search for answers--these are far, far, far less important than politeness. The finest universities have a duty to place politeness above intellectual inquiry.

A major university, properly viewed, is a charm school.

The New York Times mentions that Summers has repented, as it were, for his inappropriate candor and intellectual honesty. He has been seeking advice on damage control from Bill Clinton and David Gergen, among others. Gergen compares Summers to Socrates and quips that Socrates was executed. Are we to believe, then, that what Socrates truly needed was a David Gergen--a spin doctor? Exactly that! Socrates chose to die, rather than to disavow his views. True, he became an example to millions, inspired generations to come, was venerated for his courage, his wisdom, his virtue. And yes, his philosophy would have seemed hypocritical had he capitulated. Still, if he had had a David Gergen, a Karl Rove, a Bill Clinton, to wean him from his vile addiction to intellectual honesty, he would have accomplished so much more! The powers that be in Greece would have felt placated. Everyone would have gone home with a warm feeling in his tummy--ignorant, bigoted, and blissfully unchallenged. And Socrates would have lived.

Economic models depict rational agents who act in their own self-interest. Summers failed to do this by mentioning an idea that challenged and disturbed others. Shame on him! As an economist, he more than anyone else, should know to resist the superstition of pointless integrity. He should know to calibrate his opinions so as to maximize the gain he receives from those hearing them. A passion to learn the truth--to engage the evidence, to pursue knowledge--does not enter as a component of utility in any model I have seen. It is thus a superstition. It is particularly misguided when it interferes with the quest for the wise and truly acceptable lifetime goals: the maximization of status and wealth. Shame on you, Larry.

P.S. Babcock, my misguided research assistant, believes that the role of universities is to challenge orthodoxies and to explore provocative ideas, based on evidence. He finds it appalling that Summers is now seeking advice from acknowledged masters of doublespeak and spin. Babcock believes that if the choice is between truth and politeness, an academic with integrity must choose to speak a cold truth over some warm and oily falsehood. What an ignoramus Babcock is! (How could he have studied with me, Dr. Edgeworth Boks, all these years--knowing my high reputation and the number of times I have been published in Econometrica--and still have remained so clueless and principled? I must be a very poor teacher, indeed.)

Take it from me, dear readers: Intellectual honesty is the scourge of academia. It is a dangerous virus carried by rats--very rude and insensitive rats--who must be crushed whenever they raise their ugly heads.

Fortunately, my comrade in economics, Larry Summers, appears to have learned his lesson.

Yours in warmest condescension,

Edgie

Comments

[Zogg]

Your comments on the Summers comments betray a mind divided against itself. That it stood for this long is a testament to your fighting spirit.

As the petard, I will use the following quote:

"P.S. Babcock, my misguided research assistant, believes that the role of universities is to challenge orthodoxies and to explore provocative ideas, based on evidence."

Your belief in the proper role of universities, or in the proper choice that Summers should make as an academic, is almost completely antithetical to what you might expect universities or Summers to do as agents in economic models. You may think that you are making that exact point in your posting, but, in fact, you are uncharacteristically shying away from the logical progression of this line of thought.

As we all know, an idea is not divorceable from its context. When Summers utters something which challenges orthodoxy, it has far more impact than when Babcock says the exact same thing. I would argue that this is a result of Summers'long-standing efforts to establish himself as an authority in his field (career-building). If Summers utters something that damages his career and authority, he reduces the impact of any future orthodoxy-challenging utterances that he, as an academic, desires to promote. When does the value of airing the current utterance become greater than the risk of damage to future utterances?

This question has more complexity than a simple reduction of Summers' choice to that between "integrity" as an academic and some sort of personal career-preserving utility. I would next argue that, to figure out the proper choice (the choice of maximal integrity), one might use the same models that you economists use to analyze any other pursuit of any other goods.

This would bring us right back to the core battleground of the Babcockian mind: the Verdun where integrity or principle becomes antagonistic to economic models based on utility-seeking rational agents. Fortunately for your mental health, this battleground is all in your mind. In the Summers case, as in all cases you probably have squirreled away, it is all about utility calculations - and whether you call the utility "integrity" or "greed" or "personal growth" does not matter.

Personally, I think Summers is a dumbass for saying this thing about the ladies. The thing itself is a tautology, but why go out and say it?

[Philip]

Hi Zogg and thanks for your comments.

I'll start with your interesting indictment:

"Your belief in the proper role of universities, or in the proper choice that Summers should make as an academic, is almost completely antithetical to what you might expect universities or Summers to do as agents in economic models. You may think that you are making that exact point in your posting."

Yes, I’m with you, Mr. Zogg, so far. I was trying to make that point.

"...but, in fact, you are uncharacteristically shying away from the logical progression of this line of thought."

Here’s where I lose you. Dr. Boks concludes Summers should do the career-promoting thing and ignore intellectual integrity. You suggest that Summers has the capacity to make an impact precisely because he has built a reputation by not challenging orthodoxies.

"If Summers utters something that damages his career and authority, he reduces the impact of any future orthodoxy-challenging utterances that he, as an academic, desires to promote. When does the value of airing the current utterance become greater than the risk of damage to future utterances?"

Hmmm. If you’re saying that an academic must sometimes pick his battles carefully, sure, I agree. But I’d argue that your analysis is a bit misleading. Is it really the case that what academics do is spend their careers expressing falsehoods and half-truths and systematically ignoring the truth, so that eventually, when they are important and have credibility, they can finally speak and write clearly and truthfully? I don’t see much evidence of this. It is a game that does not end. Ever. I haven’t seen any sudden expressions of intellectual integrity from senior figures. (Summers, for example, has made a habit of saying outrageous and controverial things through his entire career: He didn’t just start doing it now that he’s important.) The tension between expressing bold and controversial ideas versus career advancement does not simply vanish in the long run. There is a genuine trade-off.

By condemning academic hypocrisy, bloggers and others may be able to change the climate at universities. It has already started to happen in some places. Boks sides with the old order. Play the game, produce nonsense, and smile as you put your check in your pocket. Babcock argues against him. Boks' approach creates a classic negative externality. The academic playing the game maximizes his utility at the expense of everyone else (who presumably has a stake in the advancement of knowledge).

In any event, it seems to me you conclude with a very Zoggian tautology:

"In the Summers case, as in all cases you probably have squirreled away, it is all about utility calculations - and whether you call the utility "integrity" or "greed" or "personal growth" does not matter."

The problem is: Utility is whatever you choose it to be, Zogg. When you see someone act, you simply decide that they maximized utility no matter what they did. There is no content to this. It is unfalsifiable. There is no observed act that could make you decide someone wasn’t maximizimg his utility.

Anyway, my alter ego and I stand by our statements, for what they’re worth. Sounds as though you side with Edgie this time. Many others will, as well.

[zogg]

Reading over my previous comment (always a bad idea), I can definitely see the sponginess of my arguments. As you may have suspected, this does not discourage me at all from restating my still-valid underlying point.
I am saying that an academic, as every other agent, must pick his battles carefully; when he does not, he can be called a dumbass without a concession to some "principle" that overrides the basic rule that you are a dumbass when you pick the wrong battle. If the calculation of utility can be made by me, an outside observer, and I conclude that it was not worth it for Summers to blurt out this particular inflammatory comment, then I have to assume that Summers himself should have made the same calculation and come to the same answer - therefore he is a dumbass for failing to do so. If you reduce this to an absolute, you do get an unfalsifiable statement - that all utility is calculable. However, I would hope that, as a budding young economist, you would have enough trust in measurement systems to avoid the other unfalsifiable extreme - that utility is always incalculable because there are these "principle"-driven actions that lie outside calculable utilities. I think that, in most situations, a reasonably smart person can make the call on whether the agent made the right choice - and what is that if not a utility calculation?

Just to correct your paper tiger:

Summers' choice is not to either endlessly blather points of consensus and have a nice career or endlessly express his own opinion no matter what and be an unread blogger. As you point out, he is known for expressing controversial opinions, yet he has made quite a nice career. My conclusion is that he has picked his controversial opinions quite carefully, and that picking this particular opinion to express was a lapse in judgement.

[DaxdoolveReal]

If you want to know what god thinks of money, just look at the people he gave
it to.
-- Dorthy Parker

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://blurty.com/users/freddymirandaln

[Steven Morgan]

The economic facts are eerily familiar and no less depressing: No new jobs were created in August. The national unemployment rate is more than 9 percent. (It is probably closer to 20% when the unemployed who have given up hope of finding a job and the underemployed are counted.) Some states have an official 12% unemployment rate or even higher. Thousands are losing their jobs every day. President Obama has thrown $4 trillion into the economy, including billions to save the banks and car companies, yet not one job has been created. Housing prices continue to fall as more people foreclose. Houses are being demolished in an attempt to elevate housing prices. Once-flourishing neighborhoods now look like ghost towns as jobs disappear. Consumers who are unsure if their jobs are secure, and the many unemployed millions, aren't spending because they lack the money to spend. Most live paycheck-to-paycheck and barely make ends meet. Republicans, Democrats, Tea Party politicians, Independents and every other political persuasion has either failed to make proposals to create jobs, or has implemented proposals that have failed miserably.

I believe there is light at the end of this bleak economic tunnel. Americans need not wake up each day with feelings of despair. To that end I would like to propose solutions to jump-start the economy.

It should be crystal clear by now that tax breaks for businesses and individuals have failed - and will continue to fail - because businesses and consumers can't spend tax breaks. And that is the key to reducing unemployment: consumer spending. According to many economists, some 70% of economic activity in the United States is generated by consumer spending. Consumers and businesses need cold hard cash in their bank accounts.

So my proposal is simple: the federal government should give money to where it will do the most good: directly to consumers. Each taxpaying family earning under $200,000 annually should be given a minimum of $25,000 to spend as they please. When consumers spend, jobs are created. Do families deserve this federal bailout? I firmly believe that they do; it was taxpayers who bailed out the banks and car companies. It is high time for the federal government to show its gratitude to taxpayers by bailing them out. My proposal would result in a short-term decrease of federal government revenue, but the decrease would eventually be offset by tax revenue generated by working people.
A stiff tariff should be imposed on goods imported from countries which have an adverse military, political and/or economic relationship with the United States. For example, China has for many years blocked American imports, dramatically increased its exports to the United States, failed to let its currency float, abused human rights, and created an adversarial political, economic and military relationship. It is morally reprehensible for manufacturers to do business in China or with any other country which does not share our economic, military and/or political values. The tariff would not only send a political message to these countries but would bring back jobs to America.

The income tax system should be scrapped entirely and replaced by a consumer-oriented tax. A 6% tax on all goods and services, including food and medicine, should be levied by the federal government. States and local governments can add another 2, 3 or 4 cents. There would be more than enough money to finance federal, state and local governments.
The United States should vacate Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, not in one, two or three years. While the kids in those countries are receiving a high-quality education at American taxpayer expense (and part of the curriculum focuses on how to hate Americans and other infidels), the infrastructure of many schools in the United States is crumbling, and layoffs of thousands of teachers and other support personnel continue unabated. The U.S. simply can't afford to educate the kids in three countries. Our own kids should take priority.

Your comments are welcomed and encouraged.

Respectfully submitted,

Steven Morgan, North Hollywood, CA

s.morgan56@yahoo.com