The economics profession is increasingly aware that a harsh seminar climate stifles risk-taking and learning. As a result, there's a conscious shift towards maintaining a more civilized and constructive environment during public research presentations, moving away from public humiliations.
Related Insights
Shifting from a black-and-white "right vs. wrong" mindset to a probabilistic one (e.g., "I'm 80% sure") reduces personal attachment to ideas. This makes group discussions more fluid and productive, as people become more open to considering alternative viewpoints they might otherwise dismiss.
Barry Diller views confrontation not as negative conflict but as a vital process for discovery. He believes the "convulsive arguing of ideas" forces hidden truths and better insights to the surface. For him, a lack of direct, passionate debate leads to dull, suboptimal outcomes.
Jensen Huang rejects "praise publicly, criticize privately." He criticizes publicly so the entire organization can learn from one person's mistake, optimizing for company-wide learning over individual comfort and avoiding political infighting.
Every research paper presented at major conferences is paired with an official critic, or "discussant." This person's job is to translate the work for a broader audience, identify key takeaways, and provide constructive, public feedback, ensuring rigor and clarity.
A senior economist's "nightmare scenario" at a conference is not having an error exposed, but appearing to deliberately hide a data flaw. This underscores that the economics profession is built on a foundation of intellectual honesty and trust.
A key feature making economics research robust is its structure. Authors not only present their thesis and evidence but also anticipate and systematically discredit competing theories for the same outcome. This intellectual honesty is a model other social sciences could adopt to improve credibility.
To ensure rigorous vetting of ideas, create an environment of friendly competition between teams. This structure naturally motivates each group to find flaws in the other's thinking, a process that might be socially awkward in a purely collaborative setting. The result is a more robust, error-checked outcome.
These events are not just academic exercises. They are where initial, data-driven ideas that will shape future monetary and economic policy are first presented, critiqued, and refined by peers, serving as the first draft of policy debates.
People are more willing to accept and incorporate feedback about traits they see as secondary, like being "well-spoken" or "witty." Tying feedback to core identity traits, such as kindness or integrity, is more likely to be perceived as a threat and trigger a defensive response.
Instead of personally challenging a guest, read a critical quote about them from another source. This reframes you as a neutral moderator giving them a chance to respond, rather than an attacker. The guest has likely already prepared an answer for known criticisms.
