Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Does Admitting You Might Be Wrong Make You Right?

What tabloids and economists have in common.

by
Hannah Sternberg

Bio

April 22, 2014 - 2:04 pm

freakonomics

I just finished reading Freakonomics for the first time. I know, I’m behind the times. I picked it up out of curiosity (I’ve heard so many things about the book, its authors, and the subsequent podcast) and convenience (it was left by a previous employee in the office I just moved out of, and while I was packing up unwanted books to donate, I set it aside).

One thing that struck me is how often economist Steven Levitt’s self-deprecation is cited as proof of his sincerity and trustworthiness. Everyone is fallible (even economists!) but you can probably trust the guy who’s wise enough to admit it, right?

I won’t play a guessing game on whether Levitt uses self-deprecation cynically, to manipulate readers, or whether he really is that humble a guy. The thing is, either way, there’s just too much of it. My relief and pleasure at discovering an economist who admits he may be wrong was quickly dampened by irritation at the way self-deprecation is used to excuse whatever happens to come next.

It’s possible I’m wrong, and there are a lot of variables involved that are nearly impossible to scientifically measure, and you should do your own research and think critically before making up your own mind, but…I’d posit that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is actually a documentary. Cats are secretly in control of the White House. And we all live in a computer program called The Matrix.

Obviously, admitting my potential error before I drop these theories makes them no less ridiculous. But the example above illustrates how self-deprecation can really be a rhetorical device to persuade someone into hearing out your outlandish theory (“Well, if he admits he might be wrong, he can’t be that nuts — what’s he got to say?”) and also a verbal insurance policy (“You can’t hold me to that, I told you up front I might be wrong!”).

My question is: does that verbal insurance policy really cash out? Is “I told you I might be wrong” actually a good defense for sharing a theory that may not be completely sound, but may spread disinformation or encourage bad policy? (I’m done picking on poor Levitt now, and just wondering generally — though some of his more famous theories may be grouped by some readers in that category.) It’s actually a close cousin to an infamous tabloid journalism trick — start a statement with “rumor has it” and you’ve admitted the following report may not be totally factual, but most readers who remember it will just remember the claims in the story, not the qualifier that they may not be true.

I still enjoyed Freakonomics for its refreshing and unusual take on a variety of interesting subjects. I hope Levitt continues to do his work of overturning common wisdom and examining topics other economists consider beneath them. I just wonder if he, and other fans of his favorite rhetorical device, realize there are limits to a “I might be wrong” insurance policy.

Hannah Sternberg is a writer and cocktail conquistador operating out of Washington, DC. Her second novel, Bulfinch, is now available on Amazon.com in paperback and Kindle formats. Relieve your itchy fingers and click here to buy it now.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (4)
All Comments   (4)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
admitting a mistake, means that you made a mistake, not that you were right.

Seems simple.

But guess that is why people spend so much time going to college and other institutions, so they can be filled with such BS as to make such comment.s
34 weeks ago
34 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm glad I read this article. That's the best explanation I have seen of my cat's behavior.
34 weeks ago
34 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's not uncommon when reading Keynesian economists, no. If you're really interested in learning how economics works, and if you'd like to hear from someone who's unapologetic about it, you need to read from the Austrian School: Menger, Hayek, Say, Bastiat, Mises, and Rothbard.

This is real economics - every day. Not the BS that truly is impossible to actually calculate, because NO ONE can account for all the variables of hundreds of millions of individuals making dozens of economic exchanges every hour of every day. It's simply not possible. Aggregate-schmaggregate.
34 weeks ago
34 weeks ago Link To Comment
Saying you might be wrong doesn't make you right, but it does allow you to say something controversial without being controversial. Darrell Huff demonstrated the inverse method of being agreeable without actually agreeing by using the phrase "There may be something in what he says" in his book How To Lie With Statistics.

In this case, you can do the same thing with Steven D. Levitt: "Well, there may be something in what Steven D. Levitt says in his book Freakonomics."

See how easy that is? If somebody later brings you exhaustive prood that the book is garbage, you can just reply "I never actually said that what he said was necessarily accurate, now did I?"
34 weeks ago
34 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All