[Annotated] To err is human; so is the failure to admit it

An online journal encourages economists to own up to^[각주:1] past blunders^[각주:2]

A newspaper cannot publish for 174 years without some mistakes. This one has made its share. We thought Britain was safe in the European exchange-rate^[각주:3] mechanism^[각주:4] just weeks before it crashed out; we opined^[각주:5], in 1997, that Indonesia was well placed to avoid financial crisis; we noted in 1999 that oil, at $10 per barrel, might well reach $5, almost perfectly timing^[각주:6] the bottom of the market; and in 2003 we supported the invasion of Iraq. For individuals, like publications, errors are painful - particularly now, when the digital evidence of failure is both accessible and indelible^[각주:7]. But they are also inevitable. The trick, then, is to err^[각주:8] well: to recognize mistakes and learn from them. Worryingly^[각주:9], humanity may be getting worse at owning up to its goofs^[각주:10].

Few enjoy the feeling of being caught out in an error. But real trouble starts when the desire to avoid a reckoning^[각주:11] leads to a refusal^[각주:12] to grapple with^[각주:13] contrary evidence^[각주:14]. Economists often assume that people are rational. Faced with a new fact, rational actors^[각주:15] should update their view of the world in order to take better decisions in future. Yet years of economic research illuminate^[각주:16] the ways in which human cognition^[각주:17] veers from^[각주:18] rationality. Studies confirm what is obvious from experience: people frequently disregard^[각주:19] information that conflicts with their view of the world.

Why should that be? Last year Roland Benabou, of Princeton, and Jean Tirole, of the Toulouse School of Economics, presented a framework for thinking about the problem. In many ways, beliefs are like other economic goods. People spend time and resources building them, and derive value from^[각주:20] them. Some beliefs are like consumption goods^[각주:21]: a passion for conservation can make its owner feel good, and is a public part of his identity, like fashion. Other beliefs provide value by shaping behavior. The conviction^[각주:22] that one is a good salesman may help generate the confidence needed to close sales; religious asceticism^[각주:23] can help one avoid unhealthy habits. 

Because beliefs, however, are not simply tools for making good decisions, but are treasured in^[각주:24] their own right, new information that challenges them is unwelcome^[각주:25]. People often engage in^[각주:26] "motivated reasoning^[각주:27]" to manage such challenges. Mr Benabou classifies this into three categories. "Strategic ignorance" is when a believer avoids information offering conflicting evidence^[각주:28]    . In "reality denial" troubling evidence is rationalized^[각주:29] away: house-price bulls^[각주:30] might conjure up^[각주:31] fanciful^[각주:32] theories for why prices should behave^[각주:33] unusually, and supporters of a disgraced^[각주:34] politician might invent conspiracies^[각주:35] or blame fake news. And lastly, in "self-signalling", the believer creates his own tools to interpret the facts in the way he wants: an unhealthy person, for example, might decide that going for a daily run proves he is well.

Motivated reasoning is a cognitive bias^[각주:36] to which better-educated people are especially prone^[각주:37]. Not all the errors it leads to are costly: preaching the superiority of Arsenal despite contradictory evidence^[각주:38] does little harm. But when biases are broadly shared - within troubled^[각주:39] firms, say, or financial markets or political parties - danger lurks^[각주:40]. Motivated reasoning helps explain why viewpoints^[각주:41] polarize^[각주:42] even as more information is more easily available then ever before. That it is easy to find convincing demolitions^[각주:43] of climate-change myths, for example, has not curbed^[각주:44] misinformation^[각주:45] on the topic. But the demand for good (or bad) information is uneven^[각주:46]. Polling^[각주:47] shows, for example, that Democrats with high levels of scientific knowledge are more concerned about climate change than fellow partisans^[각주:48] with less scientific background; among Republicans, the level of scientific awareness^[각주:49] has no effect on^[각주:50] climate beliefs. Even, or especially, sophisticated news consumers look for what they want to find.

Work by Mr Benabou suggests that groupthink^[각주:51] is highest when people within groups face a shared fate: when choosing to break from a group is unlikely to spare an individual the costs of the group's errors^[각주:52]. If an individual politician's fortunes rise and fall with his party's, breaking from groupthink brings little individual benefit (and may impose^[각주:53] individual costs). The incentive^[각주:54] to engage in motivated reasoning is high as a result. Even as the facts on a particular issue converge^[각주:55] in one direction, parties can still become increasingly^[각주:56] polarized around starkly^[각주:57] different belief-sets. That, in turn^[각주:58], can make it harder still for a member of one party to derive any benefit from breaking ranks^[각주:59]. Indeed, the group has an incentive to^[각주:60] delegitimize^[각주:61] independent voices, such as statistical agencies^[각주:62] or budget watchdogs^[각주:63]. So the unanimity^[각주:64] of views can be hard to escape until it contributes to^[각주:65] a crisis.

Lowering the cost of admitting error^[각주:66] could help defuse^[각주:67] these crises. A new issue of Econ Journal Watch, an online journal, includes a symposium^[각주:68] in which prominent economic thinkers are asked to provide their "most regretted statements". Held regularly, such exercises might take the shame^[각주:69] out of changing your mind. Yet the symposium also shows how hard it is for scholars to grapple with^[각주:70] intellectual regret. Some contributions are candid^[각주:71]; Tyler Cowen's analysis of how and why he underestimated^[각주:72] the risk of financial crisis in 2007 is enlightening^[각주:73]. But some disappoint, picking out regrets^[각주:74] that cast the writer in a flattering light^[각주:75] or using the opportunity to shift blame^[각주:76]. 

I don't want to be right

Public statements^[각주:77] of regret are risky in a rigidly^[각주:78] polarized world. Admissions of error both provide propaganda for ideological opponents^[각주:79] and annoy fellow-travelers^[각주:80]. Some economists used to seethe^[각주:81] when members of the guild acknowledged that^[각주:82] trade liberalization^[각주:83] could yield costs^[각주:84] as well as benefits - though economic models^[각주:85] had always allowed for^[각주:86] this. In the long run^[각주:87], such self-censorship^[각주:88] probably eroded trust^[각주:89] in economists' arguments more than it built support for trade. It is rarely in the interest of^[각주:90] those in the right to pretend that they are never wrong.

1. own up to ; (잘못을) 인정[자백]하다, …을 모조리 자백하다. [본문으로]
2. blunder ; [명사] (어리석은) 실수 [본문으로]
3. exchange rate ; [the ~] 외환 시세; 환율 [본문으로]
4. exchange rate mechanism ; (금융) 환율 조정 제도(각국 통화 당국이 시장 개입을 통해 환율을 조정하는 국제 협력 제도; 특히 EU의 European Exchange Rate Mechanism을 가리킨다; ERM). [본문으로]
5. opine ; [동사] (격식) 의견을 밝히다 ;; US [oʊ|paɪn] UK [əʊ|paɪn] [본문으로]
6. time ; (참고: ill-timed , mistime , timing , well timed) 1. ARRANGE TIME | [흔히 수동태로] 시간[시기/때]을 맞추다 [본문으로]
7. indelible ; [형용사] 잊을[지울] 수 없는 [본문으로]
8. err ; [자동사][V] (구식 격식) 실수를 범하다 [본문으로]
9. worryingly ; [부사] 귀찮아서, 성가셔서. [본문으로]
10. goof ; (비격식 특히 美) 1. 바보 같은 실수 [본문으로]
11. reckoning ; 1. [U , C] (특히 정확하지 않은) 계산, 추산, 추정 [본문으로]
12. refusal ; [U , C] ~ (of sth) | ~ (to do sth) 거절, 거부 ;; 참고 first refusal [본문으로]
13. grapple with ; ~을 해결하려고 노력하다 [본문으로]
14. contrary evidence ; 반증 [본문으로]
15. rational actor ; 합리적 행위자 [본문으로]
16. illuminate ; (또한 드물게 il・lu・mine) 1. (…에 불을) 비추다 [본문으로]
17. cognition ; [명사] (심리) 인식, 인지 [본문으로]
18. veer from ; …에서 갑자기 방향을 바꾸다. [본문으로]
19. disregard ; [타동사][VN] 무시[묵살]하다 [본문으로]
20. derive sth from sth ; ~에서 ~을 얻다 [본문으로]
21. consumption goods ; consumer goods ; 소비재(식품・의류 등의 물품) ;; 참고capital goods [본문으로]
22. conviction ; 2. [C , U] ~ (that…) (강한) 신념[의견] [본문으로]
23. asceticism ; [U] 1. 금욕주의 2. [종교] 고행 (생활); [가톨릭] 수덕(修德)주의 ;; US.UK [əsétəsìzm] [본문으로]
24. treasure ; [타동사][VN] 대단히 귀하게[소중히] 여기다 [본문으로]
25. unwelcome ; [형용사] 반갑지 않은 [본문으로]
26. engage in ; ~에 관여[참여]하다/~를 ~에 관여[참여]하게 하다 [본문으로]
27. motivated reasoning ; Working backwards in logic, disregarding the facts in order to support an erroneous conclusion. Motivated reasoning is in contrast to logical reasoning. [본문으로]
28. conflicting evidence ; 모순된 증거. [본문으로]
29. rationalize ; 1. 합리화하다 [본문으로]
30. bull ; 3. [C] (금융) (값이 오르면 곧 팔 생각으로 어떤 회사의 주식을 사들이는) 주식 매수자 ;; 참고 bear [본문으로]
31. conjure up ; ~을 상기시키다, 생각해내다 [본문으로]
32. fanciful ; 1. (못마땅함) 상상[공상]의 [본문으로]
33. behave ; 4. [자동사][V + adv. / prep.] (전문 용어) (원래 지닌 성질에 따라) 행동[반응]을 보이다 [본문으로]
34. disgraced ; [형용사] 망신을 당한; 실각한 [본문으로]
35. conspiracy ; [C , U] (pl. -ies) ~ (to do sth) | ~ (against sb/sth) 음모, 모의 [본문으로]
36. cognitive bias ; (심리학) 인지(적) 편향(認知(的)偏向) [본문으로]
37. prone ; 1. ~ to sth/to do sth (좋지 않은 일을) 하기[당하기] 쉬운 [본문으로]
38. contradictory evidence ; 상반되는 증거 [본문으로]
39. troubled ; 2. (장소・상황・시기가) 문제가 많은, 힘든 [본문으로]
40. lurk ; 2. (불쾌한 일・위험이) 도사리다 [본문으로]
41. viewpoint ; 1. ~ (on sth) (어떤 주제에 대한) 관점[시각] [본문으로]
42. polarize ; 1. 양극화되다; 양극화를 초래하다 [본문으로]
43. demolition ; 1. [U] 파괴, 폭파; (특권 등의) 타파 [본문으로]
44. curb ; [타동사][VN] (특히 좋지 못한 것을) 억제[제한]하다 [본문으로]
45. misinformation ; [명사] 오보 [본문으로]
46. uneven ; 3. (질이) 고르지 못한 [본문으로]
47. polling ; 2. 여론 조사 (활동) [본문으로]
48. partisan ; 1. (특정 지도자・집단・사상의) 열렬한 지지자[신봉자] [본문으로]
49. awareness ; [U , sing.] ~ (of sth) | ~ (that…) (무엇의 중요성에 대한) 의식[관심] [본문으로]
50. have effect on ; 효력이 있다 [본문으로]
51. groupthink ; [U]논리 1. 집단 사고 ((집단 구성원의 토의에 의한 문제 해결법)) 2. 집단 순응 사고 ((너무 많은 사람들이 관여함으로 생기는 개인의 창의성이나 책임감의 결여)) [본문으로]
52. spare ; 1. TIME/MONEY/ROOM/THOUGHT, etc. | ~ sth/sb (for sb/sth) | ~ (sb) sth (시간・돈 등을) 할애하다[내다/내어 주다] [본문으로]
53. impose ; 2. [타동사][VN] ~ sth (on/upon sb/sth) (힘들거나 불쾌한 것을) 부과하다[지우다] [본문으로]
54. incentive ; [C , U] ~ (for/to sb/sth) (to do sth) (어떤 행동을 장려하기 위한) 장려[우대]책 [본문으로]
55. converge ; 3. (생각・정책・목적 등이) 수렴되다 [본문으로]
56. increasingly ; [부사] 점점 더, 갈수록 더 [본문으로]
57. starkly ; [부사] 순전하게, 완전히, 전혀 [본문으로]
58. in turn ; 차례차례 [본문으로]
59. break rank(s) ; 낙오하다, 대열을 흐트러뜨리다; 동료와 의견을 달리하다[with] [본문으로]
60. incentive ; [명사] ~ (for/to sb/sth) (to do sth) (어떤 행동을 장려하기 위한) 장려[우대]책 [본문으로]
61. delegitimize ; [동사] 정당한(적법한) 지위에서 물러나게 하다. [본문으로]
62. statistical agency ; 통계청 [본문으로]
63. watchdog ; [명사] 감시인, 감시 단체 ;; 참고 guard dog [본문으로]
64. unanimity ; [명사] 만장일치 ;; US·UK [|ju:nə|nɪməti] [본문으로]
65. contribute to ; ~에 기여하다 [본문으로]
66. admit one's error ; 잘못을 인정하다 [본문으로]
67. defuse ; [vn] 1. (긴장・위험 등을) 진정[완화]시키다 [본문으로]
68. symposium ; (pl. sym・po・sia / -ziə / 또는 sym・po・siums) ~ (on sth) 심포지엄, 학술 토론회, 특정 주제를 놓고 연구·토론하기 위한 전문가들의 모임을 말한다. [본문으로]
69. take the shame ; own up to your mistake take reponsibility show remorse/emotion - don't avoid etc [본문으로]
70. grapple with ; ~을 해결하려고 노력하다 [본문으로]
71. candid ; 1. 솔직한 ;; 참고 candour [본문으로]
72. underestimate ; (참고: underrate) 1. (비용・규모 등을) 너무 적게 잡다[추산하다] [본문으로]
73. enlightening ; [형용사] 계몽적인, 밝혀 주는, 깨우치는 [본문으로]
74. pick out ; [동사] 선택하다; 뽑아[쪼아] 내다; 듣고 분간하다; 가려내다; 장식하다. ;; 동의어 choose; extract; recognize; discriminate; deck out. [본문으로]
75. put[cast] sth in a (flattering) light ; ~의 분위기, 이미지 가 ~한 light 로 비춰지다. [본문으로]
76. shift (the) blame to ; ~에게 비난, 책임을 전가하다. [본문으로]
77. public statement ; 공개 보고(서) [본문으로]
78. rigidly ; [부사] 융통성 없이, 완고하게, 굳게, 엄격히 [본문으로]
79. opponent ; US [ə|poʊnənt] UK [ə|pəʊnənt] ;; 2음절에 강세가 있다는걸 잊지 말자 [본문으로]
80. fellow-traveler ; 1. 길동무, 동행 2. (정당, 특히 공산당의) 동조자[동무] [본문으로]
81. seethe ; [v] 1. ~ (with sth) | ~ (at sth) (마음속으로 분노 등이) 부글거리다, 속을 끓이다 [본문으로]
82. acknowledge ; 1. ADMIT | (사실로) 인정하다 [본문으로]
83. trade liberalization ; 무역 자유화 [본문으로]
84. costs ; [명사] 경비, 비용 ;; yield costs를 generate costs정도로 활용한 정도로 이해 [본문으로]
85. economic model ; (경제) 경제 모델 [본문으로]
86. allow for ; ~을 감안하다[참작하다], …을 위해 감안하다, …으로 잡아두다, …을 고려[참작]하다, 계산에 넣다 [본문으로]
87. in the long run ; (앞으로 길게 보았을 때) 결국에는 [본문으로]
88. self-censorship ; 자기 검열 [본문으로]
89. erode ; 2. (서서히) 약화시키다[무너뜨리다]; 약화되다[무너지다] [본문으로]
90. in the interest(s) of ; ~을 (도모하기) 위하여, …을 위해서; …을 전진시키고 향상시키기 위해(공손한 말투 in someone’s (own) (best) interests와 비교할 것) [본문으로]