1) Journalists often claim that Economics “has not been very successful in predicting the trends in history, and that this suggests that Economics is far from being a science.” When I read a journalist who makes this claim, it is clear to me that he is a fraud, a total fake. I have never read a serious economist who believes that this is the purpose of the economic science or even that economists can forecast the future. But, you do not have to be an economist to know this. It is obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with the subject. This does not, of course, mean that we know nothing about the future, or that we cannot anticipate certain trends. Decent economists never encourage this tendency of journalists, and tell them that the monthly changes in economic indicators are not as important as they believe. But, their attitude is “Yeah, Yeah, Yeah”. This is a classic case of projecting ones own inferiority onto others. They assume that this is the goal of economics. Then, they blame the economists for not living up to their expectations. These critics of economics cannot even describe the content of economics with reasonable accuracy. This is true of all such frauds.
2) When I read a writer who claims that a particular view is not “subtle” or “nuanced”, or that it is a “black-and-white” perspective, I assume that he is a fake. People who love the truth have no use for this sort of criticism. People want to believe that a view that they disagree with is not “subtle” or “nuanced”, whatever that means. Often, these people have no understanding of the complexity of the position that they criticize. They simply assume that it is a childish view, because they do not like it, because it appears extreme, or because they hate good prose. Again, this is a projection of ones own inferiority onto others.
3) Many writers claim that they will never write an autobiography because they cannot do justice to such a work—-because they cannot be fully honest about themselves. Many readers believe, or claim to believe that autobiographies cannot be trusted. But, the most important details of someone’s life are the inner workings of his mind. The facts that are open to observation are just superficial details. No one else other than the person himself can do justice to such a work. It might be true that all autobiographies are dishonest to some degree, but that is a result of a choice, not because of the constraints. In biographies, such constraints play a much larger role. When I hear a writer saying this, I dismiss him as a fake who cannot be truthful about himself. People who find it hard to be objective have such naïve views on the nature of objectivity.