In this installment I want to talk about a topic not so much of economic theory as of business management, and that is the value of tradition, In many firms we hear of the value of "institutional memory", by which they mean tradition, but at the same time, these same management types also push the need to "think outside the box" and "break with the old ways". In other words, while seeming to vaguely understand the importance of received knowledge, but at the same time have adopted the cultural distrust of age. And, having worked in many firms, public, private, and quasi-governmental (eg. universities, government contractors and the like), as well as working directly for the government -- both civilian and military -- and having studied law, business management and economics¹, I think I can honestly say that the current trend toward iconoclasm in management has no real "scientific" basis and is nothing more than a cultural prejudice translated into technical jargon. But rather than just assert that, allow me to show you why, by showing you the reason tradition is important.

Before we begin let me say that the idea that "thinking outside the box" is something new is nonsense. Throughout the ages it has been recognized that conditions are imperfect, and so any improvement would, of necessity, have to involve breaking with tradition. The difference between today's beliefs and those of the past is the modern assumption, wholly unfounded, that any break with tradition represents an improvement.

The funny part of all this is that today's belief is just as absurd as the ancient belief they caricature. You see, in the more remote past, it was believed, in both pagan and early Christian times, that the remote past was a time of perfection, be it Eden, antediluvian times, or some other remote paradise, and ever since things have been gradually declining, and would continue to do so until we eventually became so corrupted that the world would end, bringing about a new paradise (or, in some beliefs, simply a fresh start -- eg. the Nordic Ask and Embla, the Hindu yugas, or even the traditional ending of the Pandora myth).  Given this pessimistic outlook, it is inevitable that tradition would be accorded the highest respect and any change would be viewed as more likely to harm than benefit.  As a result, innovation was viewed with skepticism, though, I have to note, was given more tolerance than most moderns show for tradition, so even this ancient, very conservative position, was more balanced than the modern iconoclastic view.

But, barring those differences, the modern view is basically a reversal of the ancient perspective. Rather than positing a past paradise, the moderns accept that "new" is always better². Endowed with a technocrat's faith in endless improvement, they leap to the wrong conclusion and assume "new" inevitably means "better"³. Some of this can be seen in pop culture, in which the hidebound traditionalists are portrayed as standing in the way of a "rebel" who proves his theories right. This "Teenage Caveman"⁴ viewpoint is at the heart of modern thought, with its core feature being the belief that tradition is not something valuable, but simply a set of arbitrary rules which get in the way of real improvement.

Between these two positions lies the proper perspective, the one which predominated throughout at least the age of enlightenment, age of reason and most of the modern era, as well as many other historical eras. That is the belief that tradition is a valuable guide, but that improvement is possible. However, before adopting an innovation, one must first check that it actually improves upon what we already have⁵.  In this view, we have received something of value and, before rejecting it, we have to make sure what we get in return is of greater value. It is a hard-headed, practical philosophy, not only well suited to the quite practical nineteenth century, but one which also fits quite well with observed reality.

But rather than explain what people once thought, let me instead explain quite simply why they were right, why it is best to treat tradition with respect and to reject any changes until it can be shown they are an improvement upon what we received from our predecessors. Why it is better to think "inside the box" until you can show conclusively that the box is the wrong one for the job and a different box would work better.

Before proceeding, I suppose I should mention my assumptions, as my entire theory rests upon a few simple beliefs. However, if the reader does not agree with them, then we probably will never reach any agreement. Then again, I believe these beliefs to be so obvious that I have doubts anyone could seriously disagree with them.

First, the most basic assumption is that people in the past were not fools. They may have lacked some information we now have, but, within certain limits⁶, our ancestors had the same cognitive abilities we have. Faced with a similar problem, our ancestors would likely have reasoned the same way we would, provided we were in possession of the same information. Of course there may be some differences, due to cultural traditions, certain assumptions and a few tools for reasoning (eg. economics was not understood as a science int he more remote past leading to some very bad assumptions concerning things economic). But were it possible to place a modern in the shoes of an ancient, or an ancient in the shoes of a modern, endowing each with the proper cultural traditions and learning, they would be largely indistinguishable from one another. And, as a result, the way our ancestors thought through the questions that make up our traditions is not significantly different from the way modern minds would approach them as well.

Second, the problems confronting humans throughout history are, in their broad details, largely the same. There may be specific questions which differ from time to time and place to place. (Eg. The question of whether a priest must be blameless to effect transubstantiation was of vital importance to Lollards, Hussites and Catholics, but would be meaningless to Andean peasants in the 10th century.) But the bigger questions, and even many of the smaller ones, are pretty universal. What is my purpose in life? What is our responsibility to our fellow man? What is the nature of the universe? Even prosaic questions. How best to organize government? How should a family be organized? What should we expect of youths? What does it mean to grow up? How should business be conducted? There are thousands and thousands of such questions, grand and mundane, which span the globe. Just reading Marcus Aurelius and Confucius together shows how much commonality there is between two men who never heard of one another. And ti also shows how many such questions are shared by all mankind. And, as a result, how much past tradition can still find applicability in modern times.

Third, mankind is basically well meaning. I do not say there is no evil, nor that man is self-sacrificing without a hint of self-interest⁷. but, I do mean that, given they have no interest at stake, people will generally not inflict harm on others without reason. In fact, given the choice between doing "good" and doing something with no moral implications, they will choose the "good" course. In fact, evil deeds, in general, need to be justified by some distortion of ethics so that they appear "good", or else people will not support them. For example, without the perverse philosophy of nationalism, the Nazis could not have carried out their evil deeds. People will, in general, do what they consider good or right. Now, granted, self-interest will sometimes get in the way of pursuing other goals, but even then they will often find a way to make their own interest "good"⁸. In short, people will generally try to do what they think right, though their perceptions may not match those of their descendants. (The significance of this will be obvious later.)

The reason I spent so much time on these three preconditions is that they make clear why there is value to tradition.

First, because our ancestors were thinking beings, much like us, who faced many problems we face as well. As they spent generation after generation asking the same questions, looking at the same problems, it stand to reason that they have already tried out many of the obvious solutions, and even many of the less obvious ones, and, as a result, the tradition represents a way to avoid repeating many mistakes. Rather than starting from scratch, experiencing all the false starts and mistakes, we can simply accept that our ancestors were not fools, that they were a mix of people much like our own age, and that the tradition represents the conclusion of many generations as to what was the best answer.

Of course, this does not mean the tradition is the absolute answer, the final word. Instead t means that it is the best to date. However, as perfection is unobtainable, and many of us have little interest in the tiny marginal improvement innovation would represent in most areas of human activity, the tradition is good enough for most of us. And that is the value of tradition. In areas where we do not need the absolute optimal solution, the traditional answer is usually the best choice for non-experts. Yes, experts in each field can test out new theses against the tradition, eventually establishing a new tradition, for the rest of us, the traditional answer provides a shortcut to a very good solution, one which is impossible for those encouraged to "think outside the box", who must come up with an answer from scratch, repeating the errors that were already experienced over and over in the past.

Nor is that the sole value of tradition. As many traditions also establish rules about interpersonal conduct, the tradition also provides predictability in human interactions⁹. By making the behavior of others predictable, especially in their response to our actions, traditions also save us much wasted effort. After all, if the response of others is unpredictable, we have to prepare for every eventuality. If they respond in a range of predictable ways, then we can prepare for only those likely responses and, in the vast majority of cases, be perfectly correct in our predictions.

Now there is one final objection I need to address, or a set of objections, and that is why I made my final point, the one about people generally choosing to pursue what they see as good.

The first objection is that tradition, rather than representing the consensus about what is the best choice for individuals to pursue, instead represent the interests of a specific group, the elite, the church, whatever, and so is valueless. This is the most common position of cynical liberal thinkers, their particular variation of the "Teenage Caveman" argument. In this view, the laws established are not there to avoid the mistakes others have made, but to guard the vested interests of the controlling group. In other words, Galileo was not persecuted because the Church thought he was in error, but because his beliefs threatened Church authority¹⁰.

However this ignores a number of facts. First, the very simple fact that the past is not always the same as the present, and that anachronism makes for bad analysis. For instance, moderns find the idea of trading freedom for security offensive, regularly throwing out the overused Franklin quote to make just that point. However, to the peasants fleeing various marauding hordes as the western Roman Empire collapsed, joining a latifunda (later a manor) as either a slave or serf, trading labor and even freedom in exchange for the protection of a well armed lord, seemed a pretty good deal. And similarly traditions which protected the function of the manor, even if they did not protect individual liberties, were seen as valid, as they continued that protection which was the primary interest of the tenants and serfs. And so, far from representing nothing but the interest of the lord, protecting the manor was in the interest of all concerned, at least the interests about which they concerned themselves.

Of course, over time such interests change, and for a time there likely is a conflict between tradition and interest for some segments of society, but that is a transient phenomenon. Despite the beliefs of many, it is impossible for a minority to continually oppress a majority without at least the tacit support of that majority. Yes, the Spartans held down the helots, but largely because the helots believed the Spartan myth of invincibility, as well as wearing themselves out in periodic internecine struggles and jockeying for favor. Were the helots united in opposition, Sparta woulds have lost the Peloponnese. Similarly, throughout history, the oppressor has always managed to rule, at least for any length of time, only by convincing the conquered to allow them to rule. The ruled may be discontent, but so long as they are not unhappy enough to openly rebel, the ruler rules with their tacit approval¹¹.

I mention this because tradition, at least in terms of a minority forcing its will on the majority, simply does not exist. Over time, the needs of the majority will inevitably rise to the fore and the traditions will change to match the realities of society. Likewise, as society evolves and new needs and desires arise, tradition will change to meet them. The fictional cliche of the "law giver" using tradition to hold down innovation and continue to cling to power simply is not a tenable long term reality, unless there is a reason the majority wishes to keep society static. And if there is, then t is not oppressive of dysfunctional, but a functional rule.

And that brings me to my final point, the argument that even were traditions every bit as bad as they are supposed to be, they are still better than the alternative, a lack of tradition. This may sound nonsensical, but looked at reasonably, there are three very good reasons to prefer bad traditions to none.

First, as stated before, there is predictability. The value of this alone would make bad traditions preferable to the chaos of a lack of traditions. Even if the rules are arbitrary and nonsensical, even if they are actual impediments to progress, the benefit in predictable behavior and the potential for planning is more than enough to compensate for those disabilities.

Second, the existence of a tradition provides a baseline against which to assess any proposed change. Without any traiditon, how can we decide if a change is good? If everyone is acting differently than any proposed change might be good for some and bad for others. With a tradition we can assess the value of a change and suggest whether it would be an improvement for not. So, without any sort of tradition, without any baseline against which to measure, it would be difficult to tell if any change is a worthwhile one.

Third, if everyone is pursuing a different course, not only is there no predictability, but each will be inclined to avoid accepting a change, thinking his own course is ideal and everyone else should adopt the new plan, but he should not. In this way, it is quite possible for an individual, or many individuals, to persist in error. On the other hand, if there is a universal agreement on a tradition as being the best choice, and that is then overturned, it is quite easy to convince the majority to adopt the new change, either through simple peer pressure, or through conviction that the new is better than the old.

Actually, there is one more benefit to tradition, even bad ones, and that is continuity. As I argued many places, our current problems are largely due to a sort of "negative continuity". Because each generation takes the excesses of their youth as a baseline, and their young rebel against that more permissive standard, we have seen a continual decline in standards of behavior. On the other hand, by having a constant tradition, even a bad one, we at least have a continuity of behavior between generations, a set of intergenerational standards which works against such continual decline. Not that it makes it impossible, but it does make it much less likely.

Of course, some will say I am over-reacting to the cliche of "thinking outside the box" in connecting it to our distrust of tradition, but I think not. Our entire society has been permeated by similar refrains. Our veneration of the "rebel". Our belief that you advance by "rocking the boat", that change is always good, that progress is automatic, that scientific management of the economy is possible, that in the future technology might eliminate capitalism (a popular sci fi trope), all of it is part and parcel of our disdain for the traditional. And in that regard so is the premise that "thinking outside the box" will result in better outcomes than diligently thinking things through using traditional patterns.

Unfortunately many believe this to be true, and manage to completely overlook effective traditional solutions in favor of "innovation" for the sake of novelty. You can see it in the yearly promise of the "next new thing" be it a new fashion, a new programming language or a new car. Rather than perfecting the extant, we imagine that novelty alone will bring joy and success. And while innovation may bring about real improvement, there is nothing wrong with putting part of that energy into improving and maintaining what we already have, except for our irrational fear of tradition and "stodginess"¹².

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. As I hate those who puff up their CV saying "I am a pilot, lawyer, judge, doctor, Indian chief and astronaut, so I know...", let me say my studies are not that impressive, but do give me wide exposure on this topic. I attended law school for one year before returning to undergraduate studies to dual major in economics and business management with a concentration in finance. I was accepted into Perdue's PhD program in economics, but lacked the funds and so dropped out a semester short of my second and third BA. However, since that time I have never stopped reading on topic of economics and business management and I have taken an interest in the topic at every firm in which I have worked, though usually it was not part of my job. So, no I am not an academic professional in those fields, but I have a good understanding of what the academics are saying and thinking. As well as the "applied professionals" in the field, who often have as much influence as the professionals, usually through articles in popular journals.

2. This is one of the most bizarre contradictions in modern liberalism. While they have an environmental belief that distrusts science ("Bad Economics Part 1", "Shocking Numbers") and a multicultural belief that lionizes the primitive ("Rousseau's Foolish Legacy", "The Dishonesty of Avatar"), they also have a boundless faith in "science" ("The Limits of "Scientific" Management", "The Limits of Econometrics", "The Limits of Technocracy", "Technocrats"). They distrust technology but believe in science, which makes little sense. Then again, in some ways it parallels their religious beliefs, as many say they are Christian yet don't believe in the specific statements recorded as being spoken by Jesus. So, just as they believe in science but not its application (technology), they believe in Jesus, just not his teachings. I admit I don't completely understand the position, though I continue trying to figure it out.

3. I have written before that new technology is usually safer, especially when discussing liability laws and the ways they deter technological innovation. But the fact that some innovations prove safer does not mean any given innovation is an improvement. In fact, it does not mean even the majority of new technologies are improvements of any kind. What it means is that new technologies, properly evaluated against existing technologies, which prove their worth, tend to be safer. I know it is a tricky point, and that is likely why so many fall into the error of the "cult of novelty", but it is important to understand the difference between gradual improvement through proper innovation and the mindless worship of the new.

4. My choice of this movie is not arbitrary, because "Teenage Caveman" was one of the early movie trying to cash in on the "teen craze" of the 60's it provides a great example of how our cultural obsession with the values of youth distorts our view of most other things. By thinking the old and traditional is valueless and the "inspiration" and "enthusiasm" of youth is the only guide to truth, we end up jettisoning all accumulated wisdom and enshrining nothing but constant change.

5. It is also interesting that the technocrats of the left appreciate this practice in science, where any theory must be tested against established theories, but fail to see that our accumulated cultural heritage serves a similar purpose. They understand that a new theory in chemistry or physics must show itself an improvement upon established ideas, but do not think the same about social changes. In their eyes, scientific theories are valid, but received social traditions are simply invalid, arbitrary constructs forced upon us by oppressive dead white males, probably rich landowners, who are simply protecting their own interests and enforcing arbitrary standards.

6. Assuming current theories about the course of human evolution are correct, at some point the human, or proto-human, brain is sufficiently different from the modern brain that these assumptions might break down. Of course, as even animal behavior is largely teleological and understandable to humans, it is likely that even very early proto-humans would behave in understandable ways. Even pre-linguistic hominids would probably be as understandable as primate behavior is. But, for our purposes, I am limiting myself to the behavior of beings recognizable as modern humans. In any case, it is doubtful much of our cultural tradition comes from even 15,000 years ago, much less eras in which hominids differed to any significant degree from modern humans.

7. I have addressed this question at great length. The question of whether man is good or evil is at the heart of all my political writing. The best place to start in understanding my thoughts is probably "The Nature of Evil" followed by "Greed Versus Evil". After that I would recommend examining "Those Other People", "Our View of Our Fellow Citizens", "Seeing People As Stupid", "Appealing to Arrogance", "The Citizen Dichotomy", "In A Nutshell", "Cognitive Dissonance Part 2", "Changing Incentives" and "Three Types of Supporters of Big Government". There are others, such as "Bad Economics Part 5" and "Racketeering Through Legislation", but I think that list will give a good impression of my thoughts on the topic.

8. I am  not here debating what is "good" or "right". I only mention this as I expect some Objectivist to give me a hard time about distinguishing self-interest from "good". While I personally believe that enlightened self-interest is definitely a large part of proper behavior, I am here writing about individual definitions of "good", and many define good in such a way that it is contrary to self-interest. Thus there is a clear distinction for many between self-interest and ethics.

9. For more on the value of predictability, I would recommend reading "In Praise of Slow Changes", "Predictability", "Conservatism, Incremental Change and Federalism", "Empathy" Threatens not "Justice" but Predictability", "Sotomayor and Empathy", "Humor and Nightmare", "In Defense of Standards" and "Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"".

10. Obviously not every thinker is so simplistic. Many admit to some sincere supporters of the system, but still allege it exists more to protect interests than to protect individuals. Unfortunately, in recent times, especially with the spread of juvenile posturing on the internet, the balance has shifted from thoughtful, nuanced analysis to blatantly immature belief in massive conspiracies and EVIL (with a capital "EVIL") corporations, churches and governments. Conspiracy theories and paranoid beliefs have enjoyed quite a renaissance recently, and theories have kept pace, making painting with a broad brush much more common. For some thoughts on this see "Dabbling at Being a Film Reviewer? Not Exactly...", "Maybe Obama Was Born in Gulf Breeze, Florida" and "False Flag Theories and 9/11", "One More" and "Fort Hood and Oklahoma City".

11. This is a topic that needs much more discussion, but the fact is, a small minority cannot hold down a dedicated majority. Even with a massive imbalance of arms or training, sheer numbers make such control impossible. Which is how I know our opposition in Iraq is a small minority, as if there were considerable opposition our fatalities, even with superior training and equipment, would be much higher. You need only look at history to see that a truly motivated majority will always win. It is only when divided, or uncertain, that a majority will be ruled for a long period by a detested minority. (Eg. The HRE domination of the Italian peninsula, largely through internal discord in Italy.)

12. The greatest irony is that those who propose "recycling" and "reuse" are also those who most mindlessly chase new fads. Then again, as I said in an earlier footnote, I have trouble understanding many contradictory beliefs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

I know I have a reader or two who doubt the validity of the theory of evolution. If so, then simply ignore footnote 6, as it is not an essential part of my argument. On the other hand, unlike many conservatives, I do not feel the need to conceal my own belief that evolution, in some form, fits well with observed facts. There are clearly lacunae in the fossil record, and the theory is, as all theories are, in flux. Given the scanty data set (inevitable when dealing with perishable materials over millions of years), it is amazing we have as much record as we do, and theories based on much more complete data sets are just as unstable, so I am not surprised the theory would continue to evolve. Still, I find no problem accepting that man developed over time, or that all life came from the gradual modification and combination of genetic material.

Now to address the two most common complaints.

First, I know the theory is far from perfect or comprehensive, but neither is the theory of gravity, yet I have no problem accepting that, even though we don't know if it is space-time curvature, gravitons, or something else. We may not know precisely why mass attracts mass, but we can still accept it. Likewise, evolutionary theory is the best fit to much of observed reality, though there are many holes, gaps and some contradictions. That is the nature of science. Think about the many conflicts between quantum theories and relativity and the difficulties they pose for developing GUTs (Grand Unified Theories). Should I throw out physics because of that? If not, then why hold evolution to a higher standard? After all, physics contradicts the Bible just as much as evolution. For example, the sun cannot stand still for Joshua under our current theories of astrophysics, yet we accept those theories, so why reject evolution for contradicting part of Genesis?

Second, as those final sentences make obvious I have no problem with reconciling religious belief and evolution. I believe the Torah is the literal word of G-d, yet I do not believe it is inerrant. Why not? Because, as Maimonides wrote, G-d presented his argument at Sinai aware of his audience. Maimonides said this to explain all the anthropomorphism in the Torah. He thought that Hebrews recently freed from long captivity in idolatrous Egypt would not accept the reality of an immaterial G-d, so G-d decided to use anthropomorphic language as an allegory, but also to make it easier for Moses to convince the Hebrews to follow him. Likewise, I think G-d knew how hard it would be to explain billions of years, astrophysics and genetics to near illiterate recently freed slaves who had largely worked as shepherds and laborers, and so he put in a familiar creation story, one containing many important allegories, but one not literally true in every respect.

After all, when your child asks you about where babies come from, do you explain all the mechanics of copulation, the details of genetics and the rest? Or do you simplify and perhaps even omit or fabricate details? If you do not consider that lying then why should we consider it lying if G-d writes for a specific audience? I for one have no problem ascribing to G-d an ability possessed by ever second rate public speaker, the ability to speak to his audience as he finds them.

But that is more than I intended to write on this topic. Perhaps some day I will go into it in more detail. But as it is tangential to this post, at best, I will not bother writing any more now. Though, should you disagree, feel free to argue with me. I have no problem with debating this topic. Unlike some I don't see disagreement as a reason for recriminations, but as a chance to try to figure out the truth.

POSTSCRIPT II

The earlier Bad Economics posts were:

Bad Economics Part 1 - A discussion of how prices disprove theories of resource depletion
Bad Economics Part 2 - A debunking of the many theories based on "defective" or "damaging" competition
Bad Economics Part 3 - An examination of the many absurd claims about deregulation
Bad Economics Part 4 - An examination of problems with economic studies and empirical evidence
Bad Economics Part 5 - An examination of consumer protection and the harm it does to consumers and others
Bad Economics Part 6 - A rebuttal of claims offered in support of various types of farm price supports and other aid
Bad Economics Part 7 - A discussion of what inflation is and is not
Bad Economics Part 8 - A discussion what our money really is and is not

You can also read them in reverse order, starting with part 8, as each post contains links to the previous chapters.