Seeing ourselves as others see us

[Nick Gardner]

In the course of trying to draft articles on some of the basics of economics, some thoughts have occurred to me that I should like to share with my fellow CZ economists.  I have assumed throughout that our articles are not only for students of economics but also for the intelligent layman who wants to take an informed interest in the subject.  But I have come to realise that to do that we are faced with a problem, summed up by Robert Burns as
        O wad some pow’r the giftie gie us
        To see oursels as others see us!
I have been conscious that many educated laymen are fazed by complicated diagrams and mathematical equations, and I have agreed with Martin Baldwin-Edwards to keep them off  the main pages  and put them on the tutorials subpages (I have not made much progress in doing so, partly because I am still somewhat daunted by subpage technology, and I should be most grateful for any help). But I have recently realised that the problem goes deeper. The entire methodology of economic theory strikes many layman as other-worldly, and that is a view that is at least partly shared by some respected and popularly  influential  economists such as Diane Coyle and Paul Ormerod. That suggests that we should not just plonk text-book extracts before our readers without explanation or comment (as they do in Wikipedia). We should try both to support what we write with some defensive explanation, and to recognise it is limitations and  give some balanced recognition to its critics.
 
 Am I right 

Nick Gardner

[Robert_W_King]

I have argued this less precisely and succinctly than you have Nick about many esoteric Math and Science concepts.

[Hayford Peirce]

I think Robert and I and Stephen Ewen (and Martin, too, I recall), have been the point men in arguing (strenuously in most cases) that every article should at the very minimum have a first sentence, and perhaps more, in which the intelligent layman, or even the intelligent eighth-grader, is told what the ensuing article is about, or *why* the subject of the article exists, or *how* it is used. Or words to that effect.  Even if the rest of the article quickly becomes unintelligible to anyone who is not deeply involved in that field. In other words, if we have an article called Von Doogen's Frammus, the first sentence should not read: "The serial application of Von Doogen's Frammus is indicated by the Squiggle-Einstein formula X+Z-234 to the 3rd power, when truncated by the cake-eating 564th division of the wiggle-wobbles."  It should read: "Von Doogen's Frammus is a equation often used by microbiologists in their studies of forms of life that exist in the hot waters around undersea volcanic vents.  It is used to describe their etc. etc."

I (we) realize that many subjects really *are* almost intractably obscure or complex and that even a generalized opening sentence is going to be meaningless to most people. But not necessarily all. Take, perhaps, as a guide, Scientific American - just about anyone can read the opening sentences or first paragraph about any of their articles and at least have an idea into which category of enquiry the article subsequently falls.

[Aleta Curry]

I have argued this as well--much to the annoyance of my learned friends the biologists and health scientists, I fear, and even though I can't be described as a point man.   

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

I think both Nick and I would appreciate constructive criticism of the economics articles, with these issues in mind. The one article that I am concerned about, because it is "the" key article for the workgroup, is our article on Economics. Please look at it and make [nice] comments on the Talk page. 

[Paul Wormer]

In other words, if we have an article called Von Doogen's Frammus, the first sentence should not read: "The serial application of Von Doogen's Frammus is indicated by the Squiggle-Einstein formula X+Z-234 to the 3rd power, when truncated by the cake-eating 564th division of the wiggle-wobbles."  It should read: Von Doogen's Frammus is a equation often used by microbiologists in their studies of forms of life that exist in the hot waters around undersea volcanic vents.  It is used to describe their etc. etc."

I feel spoken to by this criticism and I have  said so more than once on this forum. At the same time I asked for help in improving the readability of my articles. Input: the identity element of the maximal  additive subgroup embedded in the field of complex numbers. (For the mathematically challenged among you: this means zero).

[Gareth Leng]

Don't feel spoken to; your contributions have been classics of concise authority. In time we will get the readability we want, but it does take time. The most urgent thing is to add serious content, and this you're doing gloriously - thanks.

[Hayford Peirce]

I wasn't speaking to anyone in particular. I had in mind a number of articles that were apparently written (or started) by authors who joined, wrote one or two articles about abtuse matters, then seemingly vanished.  Perhaps they didn't like the comments some people made about trying to make their efforts more accessible. Please don't ask for the names of specific articles: my mind has mercifully blanked them out....

[Aleta Curry]

snip!  I feel spoken to by this criticism and I have  said so more than once on this forum. At the same time I asked for help in improving the readability of my articles. another snip!

Paul, I think it's easy to feel this way around here, especially when comments seem to resonate for whatever reason, and I'm certainly guilty of that. 

I have been reminded not to take things personally.  Hmmm...okay, sure, that's easy--not!

Take Hayford at his word:  I'm sure if he says he didn't have you in mind, he didn't.

For what it's worth, I'd like to echo Gareth.  From what I have seen you're doing a fine job.

[Nick Gardner]

If anyone was getting at anyone it wasn't me! But I am somewhat daunted by the reluctance of my fellow economists to take up a challenge. Martin was right in supposing that I want to hear from others about  the article on economics. But so far nobody has replied. That lack of response is profoundly discouraging. Am I wasting my time?   Nick Gardner

[Aleta Curry]

What you are experiencing, Nick, (if I may call you "Nick" on so slight an acquaintance) is what all of us, except for the lucky few in the disciplines with tons of participants have to deal with, few active participants in specific subject areas.  People have found ways of managing.

Are you wasting your time?  Well, not the way I see it, but I suppose that differs greatly from person to person.  Some people are fine rolling up their shirtsleeves and doing things themselves, some are not.

One thing I think you are going to have to get used to pretty fast is that where there are few active people, all with busy lives and all needing to make a living and pay attention to their multi-faceted existences, you will not necessarily get rapid and timely responses.  It might take a week or more for people to see and respond to requests.  CZ is a hobby/extracurricular activity for most of us.

[Robert_W_King]

One thing I think you are going to have to get used to pretty fast is that where there are few active people, all with busy lives and all needing to make a living and pay attention to their multi-faceted existences, you will not necessarily get rapid and timely responses.  It might take a week or more for people to see and respond to requests.  CZ is a hobby/extracurricular activity for most of us.

It would be my full time job if I could find a way to get paid for it.

[Nick Gardner]

I take your point Aleta and I should be very content to wait for only a few weeks, but I have been asking for comments since September.
Nick

[Aleta Curry]

One thing I think you are going to have to get used to pretty fast is that where there are few active people, all with busy lives and all needing to make a living and pay attention to their multi-faceted existences, you will not necessarily get rapid and timely responses.  It might take a week or more for people to see and respond to requests.  CZ is a hobby/extracurricular activity for most of us.

It would be my full time job if I could find a way to get paid for it.

Ditto, but meanwhile....

I take your point Aleta and I should be very content to wait for only a few weeks, but I have been asking for comments since September.

Oh, dear!  Well, I certainly take your point, too!