Uncomfortable Collisions with Reality

Most of us have heard of the idea that, for a proposition to be scientific, it must be falsifiable — an idea associated with Karl Popper. And Thomas Kuhn's idea of 'paradigms' slid into the language following the publication of his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". In this podcast, I argue that Polanyi should be as well known as Kuhn (Kuhn seems to have got his core idea of the incommensurability of paradigms from Polanyi). And Polanyi scholar Martin Turkis and I ask why that is. I think the answer is also related to another somewhat surprising phenomenon. A remarkably large number of those studying Polanyi today have a particular interest in religion. Though religion was very important to Polanyi, he only mentioned it as a parting thought at the end of his major publications.

I talk with Seamus O'Mahony who has written a unique and marvellous book. It's about the origins of psychoanalysis, and it's the first serious history I've ever read that is written as a comedy! O'Mahony brings this off brilliantly, and it enables him to skewer the madness and quackery of the early psychoanalysts without any self-righteousness. In the background of all this is O'Mahony's experience as a (now retired) doctor, older and wiser than when he began. The hero of the book is the now obscure Wilfred Trotter, a man of prodigious natural gifts both intellectual and practical. He baled out of psychoanalysis early and went onto become the greatest English surgeon of his generation while remaining a model of modesty and self-restraint, unlike the other two protagonists of the story. In the end, he stands for the centrality and the indispensability of care in medicine. And yet, as O'Mahony laments, care receives short shrift in modern medicine. All up a marvellous conversation. If you want to dive in from the deep end, start from the 16.04 minute timestamp below.

In this podcast I got two wishes. What two things would I fix if I could. Chris Vanstone from The Australian Centre for Social Innovation (TACSI) asked to interview me as part of TACSI's thinking about its own future. I agreed but made two suggestions. First, that we record the discussion and make it a podcast.

Second, given his description of the process as exploring “what futures do you want to see”, I said that I'd expect to critique that as a starting point right off the bat. Why? Because this kind of framing suffers from grandiosity. I'm not some hero charting a course to the future. I'm a little munchkin noticing things, trying to figure out what problems and opportunities exist in what Humphrey Bogart called our "crazy mixed up woild" in Casablanca.

The ensuing session was really engaging I thought. Kudos to Chris for being an unfazed master of silence while he thinks. Oh, and the two things I want to fix?

My friend Antonios Sarhanis is a philosophy graduate turned software guy and runs a software business in Melbourne. Whenever I'm detailing various bizarre practices in ordinary white collar workforces Antonios will often say that that doesn't happen in the management of software development. That's because it's really a 'blue collar job' which is to say that it's producing an output which is very tangible — and where there's a fairly straightforward relationship between doing a good or bad job and the software working well or badly.

In lots of white collar jobs that's not the case. The upshot is that software development eschews oodles of bad practices that are endemic. We discuss everything from the value of formal education in the field to the intricacies of being a ten x engineer. There are a cast of characters you've heard of — like Bill Gates, Paul Keating, Steve Jobs and the Doge of Venice.

Why can’t economists forecast better? The short answer is they don’t try.

The four-day weather forecasts of today are as good as one-day forecasts 30 years ago. Economic forecasts have been consistently lousy throughout the period with no sign of improvement. And yet there's evidence they could improve, though probably not by as much. How could they do that? By taking a leaf out of the weather forecasters' book.

We discuss Ben Bernanke's review of the Bank of England's forecasting and ask why Philip Tetlock's work on superforecasting has received so little attention. The answer is "no reason", it's just that he's not an economist. And the profession of economics puts its store in the cleverness and technical prowess of its forecasters, rather than in their ability to consistently outperform other forecasters.

In this episode of Policy Provocations, Gene Tunny and I discuss liberty or freedom in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. As I argue, one can think about liberty in the way most of the demonstrators against lockdowns and vaccine or mask mandates did. They asserted their right to be free to make their own decisions. But I think that's freedom as licence. It's important that we not be needlessly constrained. So it is certainly important for people to raise those issues. But the ability to impose constraints is actually fundamental to liberty.

If you think of the London Blitz, imposing blackouts was necessary for preserving liberty. In this case, liberty from German bombing!

My point is not just that we impose some constraints on people because not doing so imposes harm on others. It is that what really matters to our liberty is the legitimacy of law-making. In that regard what is remarkable is that there are any number of relatively easy ways our constitution can be subverted by would be authoritarians. You'd expect the champions of liberty to be concerned with this. If they were concerned with liberty wouldn't we be making sure that governments don't appoint the Director of Public Prosecutions? If the US Republicans or the Democrats are really concerned about liberty, wouldn't they be bringing plans to the next election to reign in the presidential pardon power. This is as one presidential candidate openly talks about giving himself a pardon from gaol!

Of all the podcasts we’ve done so far, this is my favourite. 

There's a spectre haunting ESG, the new trend towards investment funds seeking to consider things other than their financial bottom line. ESG stands for Environmental, Social and Governance. But there's a problem. Often firms are not well placed to improve outcomes beyond their own immediate purview. Thus divestment from high-emissions firms might seem like a good idea, but it turns out to have minimal impact on emissions. This is as one might expect because it simply passes the invest onto investors who don't care about the issue. 

In fact there's a more powerful reason which is that starving emissions-intensive firms of funds is likely to depress their investment which they need to reduce emissions. And since the 20% of firms with the highest emissions emit 280 times what the least emitting 20% firms emit, reducing the emissions of the high-emissions firms is very likely to be where the biggest climate change action is going to be. These are genuine dilemmas but investment firms who seek to target ESG tend not to level with their retail investors that this is what is going on. They're much more likely to do their best and then 'sell' their members some calming PR on how their investments are making a difference. We talk about a left field way round this dilemma. 

A couple of months ago I read and admired this article on Palladium, a new(ish) website that “explores the future of governance and society through international journalism, long-form analysis, and social philosophy”. It seemed that there was sufficient overlap between its concerns and mine that I asked if the author, Tanner Greer, would join me on the podcast.

The essay begins with this assertion: The first instinct of the nineteenth-century American was to ask, “How can we make this happen?” Those raised inside the bureaucratic maze have been trained to ask a different question: “How do I get management to take my side?” 

It then elaborates and explores with examples, speculates on the causes of the change and discusses the means by which we might get back to a healthier situation. Greer argues that the 19th-century institutions combined three characteristics: the aspirational ideal of public brotherhood, a commitment to formality and discipline in self-government, and organizational structures that combined decentralization with hierarchy.

I hope you enjoy the discussion. 

In this thought-provoking episode of Uncomfortable Collisions with Reality, Nicholas Gruen and guest Jarrod Wheatley, founder and CEO of PIC Professional Individualized Care, delve into the complex issue of risk in out-of-home care for children. As they explore the challenges faced by those involved in child protection, they discuss the delicate balance between prioritizing the child's well-being and managing organizational risk. Drawing parallels to the institutional imperative and transparent decision-making, this episode sheds light on the need for thoughtful consideration and empathy when navigating the intricacies of the out-of-home care system.

0:55 Introduction 1:23 How the system humiliates 4:07 Prioritizing the best interests of the child 7:42 How the system prioritizes its own preservation, more than the children 9:56 Risks surrounding out-of-home care 13:30 It's the interests of the kids we're after 16:45 How would you act if they were your niece or nephew? 20:10 Bernie's advice 22:35 Practical examples 25:54 The role of communication

Another great conversation with my friend, colleague and partner in podcasting crime Gene Tunny. Gene suggested we discuss various ways in which we've placed nationally independent analysis at the centre of government, only to find that it hasn't performed as well as it might. A classic example is regulatory impact statements, which were a good idea back when Australia was among the world's leaders in introducing them in 1986. 

However, they've not had much impact because although notionally independent, government rewards 'can do' types both at the political and bureaucratic level. So the process degrades into a box-ticking process. Something similar happens with freedom of information as bureaucrats delay and resist release in various ways and the important stuff migrates into whispered conversations in corridors and secure and self-erasing platforms like Signal. And then there's independent assessment of infrastructure. 

Another great conversation with my friend, colleague and partner in podcasting crime Gene Tunny. Gene suggested we discuss various ways in which we've placed nationally independent analysis at the centre of government, only to find that it hasn't performed as well as it might. A classic example is regulatory impact statements, which were a good idea back when Australia was among the world's leaders in introducing them in 1986. 

However, they've not had much impact because although notionally independent, government rewards 'can do' types both at the political and bureaucratic level. So the process degrades into a box-ticking process. Something similar happens with freedom of information as bureaucrats delay and resist release in various ways and the important stuff migrates into whispered conversations in corridors and secure and self-erasing platforms like Signal. And then there's independent assessment of infrastructure. 

Every society evolves unique ways for people to live together happily and productively. But they change over time. Modernity has eclipsed these four ideas. 

Recovering them can make us happier and more productive. 

If I had four words to sum up where I've got to over the last couple of decades thinking how to improve the world, they'd be these. In discussing them with friend, philosopher and school teacher Martin Turkis, I gave myself the challenge of writing them out in a summary form for him to present to his high school students. This has got to be a better test of their value than whether they can be published in a learned journal. 

I enjoyed this discussion with philosophy PhD and high school teacher from San Francisco's Bay area. I tried to articulate my own view that our understanding of science as the paradigm of all knowledge gets in the way of understanding important aspects of reality that science can't help us with. 

I really enjoyed this week’s uncomfortable collision with reality with colleague Gene Tunny. 

We covered a lot of ground talking about the use and abuse of the wellbeing agenda.

Where does it come from? Why is it taking off as an approach to policy making? How do we make the most of this as authorisation to improve our world? 

By avoiding the pitfalls!

I argue that the main pitfall is imagining ourselves to be part of some grand new way of thinking. Bureaucrats and think tanks reach for frameworks and schematic diagrams. 

But if they’re the wrong kinds — if they’re schematic rather than built to aid action — those frameworks simply give us new labels with which to dress up the same old same old and the iron law of business-as-usual takes hold again. Until the next new fad, the next new vocabulary. 

Colleague Gene Tunny and I discuss a means by which we could improve the impact of innovation programs as well as fight recessions and booms.

And the cost? Nothing!