On balancing complex, competing ideas

How can we be a constructive influence in the midst of challenge and uncertainty?

We are in a complex, challenging moment. The country remains deeply polarized, with no end in sight to the partisan rancor that has characterized the last decade. Technological changes have deepened these divides, even as they also help connect the world in the digital space. In the case of AI, these approaches have the potential to radically improve the lives of populations, although this potential carries many uncertainties. We continue to argue amongst ourselves about what all this means, about who is to blame for the challenges we face, and about what is to be done to seize the opportunities of this moment and mitigate its risks. There is much about this moment that lends itself to easy outrage, with no shortage of voices reflecting this sentiment in the public debate. In this context, it is worth asking: what is our job in this moment? How can we be a constructive influence in the midst of challenge and complexity?

Such questions are of particular importance for those of us who work in academia, who are privileged to engage with ideas for a living. Ideas are at the root of much of what we are seeing and hearing in this moment. And these ideas come in many flavors: good ideas certainly, but also bad ideas executed well, good ideas executed poorly, or, in some cases, bad ideas which people of goodwill nevertheless buy into because they come cloaked in moralizing language. Navigating this moment means finding a way to engage with these ideas, sorting and sifting to identify what is worth elevating, what is worth engaging with, and what is worth moving on from. F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” For us to function well in this moment, we need to sustain a first-rate capacity to think clearly and act rationally in pursuit of a healthier world. We should be able to engage reasonably with the tradeoffs in the policy choices we face, to parse the good and bad ideas coming from both sides of the political divide, and to see the benefits of new technologies while remaining critical of their potential pitfalls. By maintaining this intellectual balance, we can help ensure this moment serves as the basis for a better, even radically better, future, rather than a backsliding into some of the worst elements of the past.

This kind of thinking can be, of course, easier recommended than done. In this polarized time, when there are so many incentives to simply close ranks with those who share our worldview and devote our intellectual energies to holding ever tighter to our beliefs, engaging with competing ideas can be a challenge. Yet it is a challenge we must accept if we are to shape this moment rather than merely react to it. In trying to meet this challenge, I would like to suggest we can learn from the principles and practices that have long sustained academia, where engaging with complex, competing ideas has historically been central to its mission of knowledge generation, teaching, and practice. We can perhaps do so by bearing in mind three central characteristics of academic communities.

First, academic communities are environments that were created to advance thinking that sharpens and clarifies ideas, that sheds light not heat. The academy is a place for following a process of reasoned inquiry and open debate wherever it may lead, even when it leads in uncomfortable directions. It is a place for testing what we think is true, being open always to the possibility that we may be wrong, understanding that the path to truth is one of reflection, humility, and doubt. It is precisely when we are most certain of something that we should be most interested in testing our certainty against what the data, and our peers, are saying. It is no accident that peer review is at the heart of the academic enterprise. The reason academic research is broadly trusted is because it is understood to be “stress-tested” by the review process which opens research to the constructive criticism that catches mistakes, strengthens arguments, and refines and elevates good ideas. We formulate ideas then subject them to scrutiny—in the form of conversation, debate, and the publication process—that helps us develop the quality of our thoughts and ideas, so that our thinking can then make a practical difference in the world. In a time when ideas are often amplified before they are “fully baked,” academia is a place for thinking that embraces nuance, complexity, and a process that helps ensure that the ideas we elevate truly reflect the best thinking of which we are capable.

Second, academia is a space for pursing reasoned conversation and debate not just for the ends they produce—better ideas, sharper thinking—but for their own sake. The free exchange of ideas is the essential exercise that supports intellectual health in individuals and communities. There is always value in the exchange of different points of view, even when these points of view reflect areas of disagreement. Indeed, disagreement—provided it is respectful, civil—should be central to the life of the mind we seek to cultivate in academic communities. When we find we are all in agreement, when we never encounter views that challenge us or complicate our preferred narratives, it is on us to seek out and engage with these differing views if we are to maintain the integrity of our enterprise. Ideally, we should understand the views of those with whom we disagree so well that, if called on to do so, we could articulate them persuasively in debate. If we are skeptical of free markets, we should be able to argue for why a robust capitalism supports a healthier world. If we are convinced of the safety and efficacy of vaccines, we should be able to articulate the motives for vaccine skepticism. This is not to say we should become advocates for positions in which we do not believe, only that, in this complex moment, we should be fully fluent in the philosophies that support such views. This means first having the conversations that bring us into contact with these ideas.

Third, academia provides a physical space where scholars representing many different backgrounds, experiences, and points of view can gather to interact on a daily basis, exchanging ideas, sharing work-in-progress, and contributing to the surrounding community. In this digital era, such spaces are perhaps more valuable than ever. They help keep what we do rooted in community, in our interactions with fellow human beings—the starting point for most, perhaps all, meaningful work. As a community of people and ideas, we not only work to build a better world, we work to build a microcosm of that world on our campuses—in our classrooms, in our student housing and dining spaces, on our greens, and in our administrative halls. This is not to say that academic institutions are some kind of throwback to a predigital era. On the contrary, academic communities—in addition to being where many key technological developments were conceived and created—have a responsibility to engage with emerging technology, leveraging tools like AI and digital learning towards broadening the horizons of what is possible, both at schools and universities and in the wider world. But we can only do so by holding fast to what is essential about all we do—namely, people coming together to work and learn side by side, and the values that sustain an inclusive, healthy intellectual community.

I have long appreciated Rudyard Kipling’s poem, “If—.” Kipling was, of course, a problematic figure with many objectionable views, and it is important to bear this always in mind when engaging with his work. But great words are great words, and Kipling wrote some remarkable ones when, in “If—,” he said, “If you can keep your head when all about you / Are losing theirs…Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it.” Fundamentally, now is a moment for us to do all we can to keep our heads. Amidst noise and outrage, amidst legitimate causes for fear and concern, we can make a difference by adhering to the principles that have made academia great and which have done much to support good ideas in a range of contexts and historical circumstances. Keeping our heads means subjecting our closely held certainties to the skepticism of our peers. It means taking the time to think through what we believe before we weigh in on consequential issues and, when we speak and find ourselves to be mistaken, being willing to admit we are wrong and to reassess. It means engaging with those with whom we disagree and, when we cannot find such people nearby, actively seeking them out to have the uncomfortable, necessary conversations that get us all closer to the truth. Finally, it means keeping people at the heart of all we do, so that our engagement with the sometimes-abstract world of ideas never blinds us to the human beings who will be affected by policy. If we can indeed keep our heads, a better world is indeed there for the making, an opportunity visible even in darker moments.

__ __ __

Also this week

A Public Health ideas conversation with Samuel Kizito, of the Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis, on a paper Kizito co-authored, “The long-term impact of family economic empowerment on viral suppression and mental health outcomes among adolescents living with HIV in low-income settings: A cluster-randomized controlled trial in Southern Uganda.”

New in Observing Science, with Michael Stein: on working to support opportunities for women in science.

On March 18, Sarah Moreland-Russell, an associate professor in the School of Public Health at WashU, will speak on “Power and possibility of policy: Implementation Science for promoting equitable and sustainable public health policy.” Register here to attend via Zoom.