"In debate, one randomly was assigned to one side or the other. This had at least one virtue - it made one see that there was more than one side to these complex issues"
About this Quote
A lot of certainty is just a luxury purchased by never having to argue the other side. Stiglitz’s line lands because it smuggles a radical claim into an almost quaint memory of school debate: forced perspective-taking is a civic technology. Being “randomly assigned” isn’t a gimmick; it’s an antidote to identity politics in its broadest sense, where positions harden into selfhood and evidence becomes decoration.
The intent is pedagogical, but the subtext is aimed at modern policy discourse, especially in economics, where people treat models and priors like team jerseys. Stiglitz has spent a career watching complex systems (globalization, inequality, regulation) get reduced to moral fables: markets good, government bad; trade good, trade bad. By praising the arbitrariness of side assignment, he’s highlighting how much of our “conviction” is contingent - often a function of social environment, incentives, and professional tribe. Randomness reveals that what feels like principle can be path dependence.
Context matters: this is an economist talking, not a debate coach. Economics trains you to hold multiple mechanisms in mind at once, then test which dominates under which conditions. The quote nudges readers toward that mindset: not “everyone is right,” but “systems have trade-offs, and you don’t get wisdom by refusing to inhabit them.” It also quietly critiques performative debate as it exists today: cable-news argument isn’t designed to discover the other side; it’s designed to punish it.
The line works because it’s modest on the surface and insurgent underneath. It doesn’t demand empathy as a virtue signal; it treats it as an instrument for clearer thinking.
The intent is pedagogical, but the subtext is aimed at modern policy discourse, especially in economics, where people treat models and priors like team jerseys. Stiglitz has spent a career watching complex systems (globalization, inequality, regulation) get reduced to moral fables: markets good, government bad; trade good, trade bad. By praising the arbitrariness of side assignment, he’s highlighting how much of our “conviction” is contingent - often a function of social environment, incentives, and professional tribe. Randomness reveals that what feels like principle can be path dependence.
Context matters: this is an economist talking, not a debate coach. Economics trains you to hold multiple mechanisms in mind at once, then test which dominates under which conditions. The quote nudges readers toward that mindset: not “everyone is right,” but “systems have trade-offs, and you don’t get wisdom by refusing to inhabit them.” It also quietly critiques performative debate as it exists today: cable-news argument isn’t designed to discover the other side; it’s designed to punish it.
The line works because it’s modest on the surface and insurgent underneath. It doesn’t demand empathy as a virtue signal; it treats it as an instrument for clearer thinking.
Quote Details
| Topic | Reason & Logic |
|---|
More Quotes by Joseph
Add to List
