While I greatly enjoy working at Harvard, there are many painfully stupid things said and done by people here -- as I suppose is the case anywhere -- that either I don't feel merit commenting on or I don't feel it's appropriate to comment on. (And, of course, I'm sure that sometime in the past I've done or said things that others find stupid, and I'm very happy they aren't blogged about.)
However, the recent comments by Niall Ferguson are out in the public, and so over-the-top stupid that even he quickly realized how stupid they were. And I think it's important to point out, prominently, how stupid they are, because the idea that either childless people or gay people somehow have a discounted view of the importance of the future deeply offends me, and somehow the idea that someone prominent in my workplace would say (or believe, or say in stupidity without really believing) such a thing has made my week substantially sadder. And so I feel the need to point it out, ideally not to sadden anyone reading this, but to emphasize how sad and stupid the comments were.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
He apologized:
http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-niall-ferguson-remarks-about-keynes-2013-5
Yes, Anon #1, I linked to it -- that's the link to his blog.
Whether one views his apology as sincere and whether it merits forgiveness for his statement I view as an individual matter, and I chose not to comment on it further.
... the idea that either childless people or gay people somehow have a discounted view of the importance of the future deeply offends me.
Really? I find the hypothesis that childless people (on average) have a discounted view of the future quite plausible and I'm somewhat confused as to how the idea could be considered deeply offensive. Maybe it's wrong, but why is it offensive?
In my view, what's offensive is the application of this hypothesis about average behavior to explain a single individual (in this case, Keynes). Keynes was a deep economic thinker, clearly with the ability to reason abstractly and objectively about situations in which he might have a vested interest. To suggest that his lack of offspring deeply affected his economic philosophy is an outlandish claim.
It's important to get offended about the right things.
I happen to agree with anonymous 3. It is fine to disagree with him (which I do) but calling it offensive, and even "gay-bashing" in the article you linked to, seems an overreaction to me.
Economics, social science, ... are fields that deal with people, and people's gender, age, race, and many of their other small or big characteristics will affect how they think, see, interpret, and analyze life, future, or anything else one can think of. It seems silly to ignore these factors in fear of offending others.
Anonymouses 3 and 4, did Ferguson cite any social-scientific research? No, it was outright speculation. It's offensive when a supposed scholar, sitting in front of a large audience, makes a damning accusation against such a broad class of people, without any data to back that sh** up.
The fact that he mixed in talk of Keynes' "effete" nature and taste for poetry only amplifies the gay-bashing character and intellectual bankruptcy of his remarks. And all this is setting aside the absurd overreach of his conclusions about Keynesian economics (which are in keeping with the general overreach of his pseudo-scholarly output).
Anon 3 and 4:
I think you're being a bit pedantic semantically, but if you're going to insist on stating:
> Really? I find the hypothesis that childless people (on average) have a discounted view of the future quite plausible...
then I'll respond. In CS terms, yes, I think it's offensive to weigh your prior beliefs of hypotheses on social phenomena based on prejudice against a group, which would seem to be the case here.
To be more offensive -- that is, to make the point more extreme -- one could in some argument setting hypothesize that African Americans (on average) really do like watermelon and fried chicken more than other Americans, or (more locally relevant), one might hypothesize that maybe women really just aren't as capable as men in sciences, genetically speaking. But scholars, in particular, should avoid treating such prejudices as though they were facts, and yes, in my mind, entertaining that such prejudices are somehow substantially more plausible than other possibilities as baseline hypotheses is, in my opinion, offensive.
That being said, we seem to agree that his statements were offensive. If you want to split hairs about exactly why it's offensive, that's your prerogative, but perhaps we can simply agree to agree (at the high level).
I'm with "Not cool" here. Ferguson wasn't trying to start from a valid baseline hypothesis regarding how some people or types of people view the future. He was trying to present a crap, cheap argument against Keynesian economics, and managed to do so in a way that would almost seem designed to malign and offend entire classes of people. To his credit, if his apology is sincere, he himself is now deeply embarrassed about what came out of his mouth.
The problem with Niall Ferguson's comments is that they are ignorant and inane, not that they are offensive (much as I find them offensive myself was well).
To wit, I'm sure many 16th century Catholics found Galileo's comments offensive. The difference between Ferguson and Galileo's comments is that one had data to back up them up while the other was speaking extemporaneously driven solely by prejudice, not science.
Anon 3 here.
I think it's important to know why something is offensive. The reasons reflect not only upon the speaker but upon ourselves.
I now see that if Ferguson had said "maybe Keynes was more disposed to a model of self-interest because he had no children" then no one would be up in arms. It's the fact that he connected the childlessness to Keynes' sexuality.
But then it's quite confusing to me why people are much more upset about the latter than the former, especially since all the reasoned critiques condemn "speaking in a public forum sans evidence."
I did not see a transcript of Ferguson's remarks, but it's hard for me to put all my trust in the article to which you linked. Consider this lovely excerpt:
This takes gay-bashing to new heights. It even perversely pins the full weight of the financial crisis on the gay community and the barren.
Anon 3 here.
I think it's important to know why something is offensive. The reasons reflect not only upon the speaker but upon ourselves.
I now see that if Ferguson had said "maybe Keynes was more disposed to a model of self-interest because he had no children" then no one would be up in arms. It's the fact that he connected the childlessness to Keynes' sexuality.
But then it's quite confusing to me why people are much more upset about the latter than the former, especially since all the reasoned critiques condemn "speaking in a public forum sans evidence."
I did not see a transcript of Ferguson's remarks, but it's hard for me to put all my trust in the article to which you linked. Consider this lovely excerpt:
This takes gay-bashing to new heights. It even perversely pins the full weight of the financial crisis on the gay community and the barren.
Post a Comment