In praise of dullness

Simon Kuper makes a good point: we need, he says, to “bore ourselves with important stuff.” This point generalizes beyond the context he discusses.

It’s true in investing. “Split your money between cash and tracker funds and then forget it” gets you at least four-fifths of the way. But it’s boring. By contrast, great stories can be horribly misleading for investors: MoneyWeek’s "end of Britain” report was a more interesting story than “shares will probably rise a little because they normally do” – but it was much less true. And “exciting” growth stocks should usually be avoided unless they are just momentum plays: corporate growth is in fact largely random (pdf) – a boring but important fact.

It’s also true in economics. Economics should not – for the most part – be about bigthink and new paradigms but a dull interrogation of the facts: the gravest flaw with the simple-minded pro-market theories that many people mistake for mainstream economics is simply that they often don’t fit the facts. It’s a matter of debate about how far economics actually has become more empirical, but I agree with Tim that economists should be like plumbers.

And here’s the thing. Politics should also be boring. I don’t just mean this in the clichéd sense that “may you live in interesting times” is a curse. I mean that political debate should be dull.

This is partly because facts should perhaps play some role in politics. For example, amidst all the pompous waffle about Trump’s inauguration speech, hardly anybody bothered to point out the dull fact that his talk about crime and lob loss was inconsistent with the facts that crime has been falling and employment rising for months – a juxtaposition which of course poses the big question of why so many people believe Trump.

To take another example, I saw in the gym today that one of those speak your branes TV shows was asking “does prison work?” It’s a good question. But it should be answered by a dull investigation of the empirical evidence, not by talking heads.

The question posed by the dull Andrew Tyrie to the “charismatic” Boris Johnson was a great one that must always be asked: “This is all very interesting, Boris, except none of it is really true, is it?”

This is especially the case because so much politics is about administration. Brexit and a citizens’ income have a big thing in common – that their success or not hinges upon the dull grind of them being implemented well.

Of course, values also matter. But these must be investigated by philosophy seminars, not by people shouting at each other in TV studios. There should be no place in politics for gobshites like your Youngs, Morgans and Hartley-Brewers. One of the banes of our age is the belief among TV executives that politics programmes should reach a big audience. In fact, they shouldn’t appeal to any more people than those who buy books on history, philosophy and social science – which is at best a few tens of thousands. Yes, people should engage in politics – but after thinking, which is dull. I suspect the left would, in the long-run, be in better shape if people spent less time demonstrating and more time reading (say) Sam Bowles or John Roemer.

There is, therefore, much to be said for being boring.

But here’s the problem. Con-men know this. Bernie Madoff’s schtick was to look like a dull middle-aged man offering clients stable returns. And for years this boring appearance hid the fact that he was a thief.

And there are far more Madoffs than you might think. There are thousands of Very Serious People in finance, politics and business who project a boring image in the hope – often correct – that people will mistake this for competence: I suspect Theresa May pulled of this trick at the Home office. If you use etiolated technocratic language on the rare occasions you break your silence, you can get away with all sorts of daft ideas: journalists are easy to fool.

Being boring can be a sign of competence: think of Geoffrey Boycott’s batting or the great Arsenal back four. But it can also be a trick.

What we need, perhaps, is less appearance of dullness and more genuine dullness.   

Comments

[Igor Belanov]

"In fact, they shouldn’t appeal to any more people than those who buy books on history, philosophy and social science – which is at best a few tens of thousands. Yes, people should engage in politics – but after thinking, which is dull. I suspect the left would, in the long-run, be in better shape if people spent less time demonstrating and more time reading (say) Sam Bowles or John Roemer."

I do loads of thinking and reading but all this has practically no effect on the shape of the left or, indeed, the wider world. I have thought and read so much that I have become very cynical or even scornful about many other peoples efforts to change things for the better.

The problem is that I have nothing better to offer. I can at least acknowledge this, rather than trying to pretend that I am more virtuous and more clever sitting here on my arse typing comments onto social media.

Can you please tell me how all this thinking and reading is going to change anything?

[Matthew Moore]

Hm.

This assumes that the role of government can be technocratically determined, independent of values.

But most disputes are about what objectives to pursue, not about the relative trade-offs.

That is, not about advancing or determining the feasibility policy space, but rather about where the indifference curves are.

Of course, there are no indifference curves for a population, which is why the public debate is interminable.

[aragon]

What is interesting about the Money Week report is: how is it wrong (I know the answer).

How can the clash of value systems and policies that impact peoples lives be boring.

Ideas are exciting, they lead to enlightenment.
The light bulb moment of the innovators dilemma's, catch 22.

Politics devoid of ideas is boring, and when run by the incompetent is boring.

Real competence is exciting, things happen, progress is made. Real competence is implementing change for the better. But competence can not make up for having the wrong plan or value system. The Basic Income is easy to implement.

Re: Trump - employment has been rising for months, (more than one?); there is a reason they call it the rust belt... it has been in decline for decades.

The Governments implements massive cuts, and the reverses direction and then says they have increased spending when it is still below it's initial value, spin is about obscuring as much as enlightening.

Boris' charisma may obscure incompetence, but as you acknowledge, so call dullness.

Remember facts are not enough: as they embed value judgments, leaving the value judgments to the dull, just let's them make the decisions by framing the debate.

Dullness is a lack of engagement.

Nothing is more exciting than a new (to you) idea ... unless it challenges your values.

Liam Byrne thinks you can find a new economic consensus. Not if you have different value systems. Of course if you lack a value system any value system will do.

Remember the TV program Shark:
"Truth is relative, pick one that works!"

[gastro george]

I doubt that Liam Byrne could find his backbone although I don't think that he has the slightest interest in finding it.

[Brian]

In Germany, my understanding is that charisma is a taboo. When I first read about this I really laughed - at the thought of having to dutifully follow due procedure to be dull. But the more I thought about it the more it made sense, that appealing to the emotions - the interesting bit - is actually a problem in politics and not just in Germany with its relatively recent history of this.

My only concern is that suppression of emotion is in and of itself dangerous. And when I say this I think of all those cruel Englishmen hiding tumultuous emotions behind a stiff upper lip - and letting it leak out in all myriad unpleasant ways (Brexit) or the many cultures in which micro-conflict is taboo but which have in living memory seen genocide (Eg Cambodia)

[Brian]

Sorry for clarification sake: charisma *in politics* is taboo.

[Jedgarnaut]

Just NB: Tim was citing Esther Duflo's lecture from a couple weeks back at ASSA. Credit where credit's due.

[Gerald Scorse]

"...hardly anybody bothered to point out the dull fact that his [Trump's] talk about crime and lob loss was inconsistent with the facts that crime has been falling and employment rising for months."

Um, no. Paul Krugman has said this repeatedly, the New York Times said it, various TV talking heads said it. There really wasn't any hesitancy to point out these "dull facts".

[Dave Timoney]

I fear you're setting up a false dichotomy between boring facts and frivolous politics, which will only encourage the epistocrats and democracy-haters. The role of gobshites like Young is the result not just of TV execs' lust for ratings but an ideological division of politics into public drama and private competence.

The vast majority of actual politics is already dull: think of employer/union negotiations, local council deliberations or the entire third sector. Most "important stuff" doesn't actually make the news. The problem is, as you say in your final sentence, one of "appearance".

[ADifferentChris]

@Igor

IMHO, the more you read, the more effective you are. But you're also more aware of how little you are in the big picture. Perhaps we also need the occasional idiot to rally round. Problem is, they can go either way. And in the narcissistic age, everyone wants to be that guy.

@Aragon

New ideas aren't exciting. They're bloody hard work. If they work.