I’ve been sending e-mails to numerous people letting them know about my article reporting on The Silencing of Academic Researcher Wade Pfau by the Buy-and-Hold Mafia. Set forth below is the text of a response I received from Carol Osler, Program Director for the Lemberg Masters in International Economics and Finance at the Brandeis International Business School:
“I certainly have seen the academic profession in action squelching unfashionable ideas and have often been on the wrong side of it. While there’s no magic solution, especially in the short run for individuals with jobs at stake, I sometimes find it calming to see that both philosophy and science are on our side about academics sometimes being profoundly unreasonable. For philosophy, Kuhn was a good start for me. He shows how most pathbreaking scientific ideas are rejected at first, usually for decades. Popper was also helpful. He has very harsh words for scientists who worship math, for example. For science, I am just now reading Jonathan Haist’s book on the psychological basis of morality, The Righteous Mind (2011). He shows, for example, why most ‘scientists’ behave like Kuhn documented, and support the group’s big ideas even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.”
She continued: “My other suggestion is to tone down your rhetoric (‘goons,” etc.) if you want ‘to make friends and influence people.’ Prose like that almost always backfires. Rightly or wrongly, most readers infer that the writer cannot think dispassionately and therefore logically, and dismiss the whole thing (it’s unpleasant and not their fight, right? So why bother stressing themselves?) Personally, I’d guess the inference is hard-wired, but I’m not a psychologist. I look forward to reading about your insights – which sound distinctly plausible upon reading the abstract — and wish you luck.”
I replied:
“Carol:
“Thanks for your response. I believe that you hit it right on the head with all of your comments.
>
“In one of the conversations I had with Wade, he pointed to a saying in the field that no paper wins the Nobel prize without being rejected numerous times. That of course is a bit of a paradox. But it makes sense because it is only small advances that are immediately accepted. Big advances seem “odd” BECAUSE they take us to unexplored territory. So it takes time for them to win acceptance. I do indeed believe that is what is going on here.
>
“I get your point about the “Goons” language. I know with 100 percent certainty that you are right about this. That sort of language is a big turn-off for most people. I’m in a difficult spot with this, however. I am not a researcher, I am a journalist. And I do my work on the internet. The internet is a very powerful medium in that it permits the rapid spread of new ideas. So those who are threatened by new ideas have had to develop ways to stop the new communications medium from achieving its potential. As a result, I really have been exposed to a lot of behavior that even in all charity cannot be characterized as anything less than “goonish.” I have had people threaten to kill my wife and children. I have had people try to destroy my business and make it impossible for me to earn a living. I have had people destroy discussion board communities that it took me years of effort to build. People threatened to send defamatory e-mails to Wade’s employer in an effort to get him fired from his job. He told me in his e-mails to me that he took those threats seriously (he had seen these people carry through on similar threats on numerous occasions).
>
“I’m not sure that it is possible to tell this story fully and accurately without letting people know about that aspect of things. So I have over time made my peace with just telling the story as it happened, knowing that people will draw unfair conclusions about me when I use language that in this particular case in entirely appropriate. The “Goons” of course count on the reactions that they know most normal people will have; their idea is that, if they are outrageous enough, they can get away with anything because we all refrain from calling people out on such ugliness. It is much akin to the phenomenon in which women who are raped are reluctant to report the crime because it is such an ugly reality that some will conclude that the woman involved must have done something to provoke it (we cannot bear to think that something like this can just happen to an innocent party). At some point, you just have to tell what happened and let people figure it out on their own schedule. The real problem here is of course not the behavior of the Goons, which would in ordinary circumstances not be tolerated by respectable people. It is the disinclination that respectable people have to acknowledge that behavior of this type really does take place and really does have influence on our new communications medium.
>
“Anyway — your words are very insightful and helpful and encouraging. It cheers me to know that there are people who hear the words and the message as clearly and perceptively as you obviously hear them. I thank you for taking my words seriously and for offering me your best wishes.
>
“Things are getting better, by the way. It’s been a slow process. But people are gradually coming around. Many, many people have tried to help and in time those efforts will bear good fruit. The full truth here is that even the Goons want to get to a better place — they are suffering from cognitive dissonance and it causes them emotional pain to come to terms with what they have done to their own retirement plans and to the retirement plans of their friends.
>
“Thanks again. Please let me know if there is ever a time when I can answer any questions or help you in any other way. You have brought a nice measure of cheer to my Thursday evening (there was a technical problem that caused a delay in my receipt of your response).”
