Blog Q1 Week 1- Abraham Yeung - Great Economists Are Great Writers
Recently, as part of a way to improve my literacy and writing skills, my dad recommended that I read works on economics. One really interesting work that I read was one by Miltion Friedman, called “A Friedman Doctrine -The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits”. I found this article especially interesting because it is so convincing yet so concise.
When I read this article the first time, it just kind of clicked—it seemed like what Friedman was discussing was right. Naturally, after reading it multiple times, I can find some holes in Friedman’s argumentation. His reasoning is especially vague and lacks concrete evidence and some of his main points are wrong. I was pretty shocked by this pretty rapid change of opinion, which I now attribute to the “convincing-ness” of the article. This was not a one-off situation, most of the time when I read these works I get the same feeling.
From what I can see, the main thing that I attribute and admire about the “convincing-ness” of these economic works is the ability of these economists to dumb their writing down. Now, obviously, I can’t employ this in my writing, since my audience—my teachers and parents—know more than me, but it’s so interesting to see how much of an effect it has when I’m reading. I tend to approach a work more critically when it’s either filled with nonsensical jargon or is extremely boring. Now, since I find reading these economic theories fascinating, the only thing that would want to make me criticize this work would be if it were hard to read. All of these writers, from Friemdan to Marx, employ relatively easy to understand words and sentence structures. It feels like as economists, these writers need to make sure their works are accessible to the average Joe, so most of the time, they use vernacular while occasionally inserting some specific words. For example, in this article, Friedman uses elementary as his “technical word” and keeps the rest of his writing simple. That makes a pretty big difference, because I don’t need to spend that much time examining or trying to figure out what Friedman is saying, I can focus instead on just letting it flow.
While I may not be able to accomplish this level of persuasiveness, it gives me something to look up to. I too, want to be able to write something that makes someone go, “hey, that’s a good point!” at first glance. I too, want to write something that makes someone go, “damn, that’s really convincing!” when they read it.
By the way, here’s the link to the Friedman article: A Friedman doctrine‐- The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits - The New York Times
.jpg){kind=link}
Hi Abraham, I found this article very interesting, as the title states a truth that I think not many people seem to believe. In today's day and age many people disregard the study of english and the humanities in favor of pursuing things like STEM or economics/finance. Your article shows that all of these fields of study are interconnected; a great economist cannot be a great economist if they are not a great writer, while a great writer cannot be a great writer without the analytical skills akin to an economist. I am going to read this article as well to gain insight and inspiration from Friendman's writing thanks to you!
ReplyDeleteHey Abraham! Making language accessible to normal people can absolutely help in influencing public opinion. I think economists like the ones you mentioned probably used easily understandable words as an ethos technique to connect more with the average Joe in their audience. When you said you could focus on letting the words flow, did you mean that his language influenced you to be more agreeable with Friedman's views? If so, I concur: I feel a lot more at ease when I can understand every word a person is telling me, and that type of mindset is likely what causes people to be more easily swayed by public figures.
ReplyDeleteAbraham, I think it’s so smart (and funny) that you were covering the style of a writer as Mrs. Smith was introducing RAs! I do debate, and one of the main skills is just being able to dumb down the complex argumentation for a “lay” judge to understand (a skill which I for some reason sometimes seem to throw out the window when I’m asked a complex question on the spot), and me being concise? I don’t think those words have ever been used in such quick succession. I once remember I wrote 2 pages - not for an essay, but for some random physics problem. I completely agree with you that these skills are really important to develop.
ReplyDelete