Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

How to Fail Productively

The Undercover Economist Tim Harford has some ideas about how to fail productively. In this short video he explains how understanding failure is the the key to understanding success. Basically, he observes, there are people who fail and know how to turn their failure into success, and then there are those who don’t. He gives three principles that are key to failing successfully.

Harford has a new book coming out on this issue. It’s called Adapt, and if it is half as good as the rest of his work, it will be wonderful. I just pre-ordered it for my Kindle on Amazon. Tyler Cowen reviews (sort of) Adapt here.

Here is, by the way,  a great blog post by Harford about why as economists and policy pundits we are all far too sure of ourselves.

Politicians are creatures of certitude: they join a tribe of like-minded people, convinced that the tribe on the other side is wicked and stupid. The media love certitude, too. Newspaper editors hate headlines with “may” or “might” in them.

For these reasons, the scholar who is honest about her doubts will find her work ignored in favour of some clever-sounding chap who just seems to know so much more about how the world works. (How else could he be so certain?) Brilliant scholars with strong, clear views, such as Milton Friedman, John Maynard Keynes and Paul Krugman, enjoy larger followings than brilliant scholars who deal in doubts and complications, such as Elinor Ostrom and Thomas Schelling.

On that point, Greg Mankiw’s column in the New York Times yesterday listed three questions to which economists don’t really have an answer.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   2

EXPAND  

   05/09/11 14:22

I read the headline as "How to Fail Productivity". My first thought... "I'm doing that right now!"

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
wpa38
   05/09/11 15:28

Journalists do love people with hard-edged opinions, but the *content* of those opinions is usually subjunctive.

In fact most headlines are about things that Could happen or Might happen, not about things that actually Did happen.

The certainty is always about a theory, not about the facts; and the theories are almost always transparently and prima-facie wrong, disprovable in an instant.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact