Faking It With Freestone: Climate Change

Climate change is perhaps the most important issue of our time and undoubtedly involves complex science, geopolitical implications and subtle moral and ethical arguments. Owing to its inherently interdisciplinary nature, it is impossible for any one person to be an expert in all the relevant fields. So Rule 9 of being a PI applies here: the more difficult something is to understand, the easier it is to pretend to others that you understand it.

Climate change will be brought up in conversation in one of two contexts: (1) someone decides they are a denier after reading an article by Freemon Dyson, Bjorn Lomborg or some other twonk; or (2) someone argues that we should be doing more to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Luckily a very small amount of factoids will cover you in both instances.

First off you need to get used to mentioning the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and their Fourth Assessment Report (2007). Rule 7 of being a PI is that acronyms are worth double the value of actual words; but Rule 7 subsection 7.2 notes that further expanding the acronym if someone asks you what it means, is worth double that value again. Don’t read the report but tell people you have and that it contains all the information they need to learn more about climate change — don’t worry, you won’t get caught out because they won’t read it either. Rule 18 of being a PI is one of my favourites and is relevant here: it’s not who’s read the most things, but who’s heard of the most things that should be read.

The tricky bit is memorising the following technical phrases which can be jumbled around a bit and if deployed will exude the sweet, false odour of erudition: solar forcing (the sun getting hotter or something), aberrant volcanic activity (volcanoes pumping bad gasses into the air) — actually that’s about it. Then you can just say that all the factors which are known to have affected the climate in the past can be ruled out today, leaving only human industrial activity and our production of CO2 and other gasses like methane (always say “and other gasses, like methane” even if you don’t know any others). Then explain that simply cutting emissions is futile and that we need larger interventions (throw in “carbon sequestration” and “geo-engineering”). This will show that you are gravely concerned, but it will also absolve you from actually doing anything unpleasant like protesting about emissions targets.

This article originally appeared in Woroni in 2011.

Faking It With Freestone: Political Philosophy

Here’s the scenario: you’re at a party and some pol-sci nerd, or B.Econ wonk busts out a libertarian screed that demolishes one of the many institutions you hold dear in your vaguely socialist, bourgeois, liberal outlook. It happens a lot and you might think it’s no place for the budding pseudo-intellectual to try and fake their way out. Wrong.

I love a challenge, as long as that challenge doesn’t involve time and effort dedicated to becoming genuinely learned.

The straightforward, trenchant arguments your opponent on the night makes against the welfare state, against workers’ unions, against Obama and against funding for the ABC will detonate inside any group of uni kids all pretending to be smarter than they are. But here’s your chance to impress that hipster boy/girl who’s there at the party, having their leftwing worldview shattered along with you.

All you need to do is point out that this market oriented libertarian view of the world is only for middle class, white men. Your opponent might not actually be white but they will always be male. There have never been any female libertarians and that includes Ayn Rand. Once the inescapable fact that the only people who buy this stuff are generally already successful and wholly male has been pointed out, the guy won’t be able to come back without saying something sexist. If they don’t, you’ve won the argument and possibly the phone number of that boy/girl with glasses, a scarf and cardigan. If they do resort to sexism, same result but you’ll probably be able to leverage some outrage at this dude’s sexism for at least a pash on the night.

N.B. They could counter by saying you’re making an ad hominem argument, which is basically one made against the person rather than their arguments. If they do, then you’re dealing with a rival faker. Freestone’s Thirteenth Rule says: nothing can beat an ad hominem argument, except calling out “ad hominem”, which is actually the ultimate ad hominem argument, because it attacks and discredits your opponent’s behaviour, thus sidelining their valid arguments.

If this happens you’ll just have to hope that you already did enough with your fairly obvious observation that an ideology centred on individualism is only popular with men.

This article originally appeared in Woroni in 2011.

Faking It With Freestone: GFC

“I wish I actually knew how all that GFC stuff worked.” You’re chatting in a group at another party and this comes out of the mouth of that hipster boy/girl you’ve earlier wooed with faux-effortless knowledge of climate change, literature and other topics for pseudo-intellectual persiflage. Well this is your chance to seal the deal by cementing your erudition bona fides in front of him/her with some well chosen canards.

After attributing the crisis to the “increased complexity and interdependence of the global financial system” (whatever that means), you’ll have to provide some specifics.The following phrases need to be rote learned: subprime mortgage market, collateralised debt obligation, toxic assets. In particular, “collateralised debt obligation” is, unlike its referent, worth its weight in gold. Merely being able to pronounce “collateralise” will afford you status as a well-read person.

Delivery is tricky. Depending on your audience, you may want to drop it casually, as though it’s one of the many bits of finance esoterica you are familiar with, in your exhaustive knowledge of financial products and securities. Alternatively you may get extra marks if you put quote marks on it and roll your eyes at the jargon, acknowledging that you are savvy enough to know the term and indeed so savvy that you can drop it with disdain, ironically referencing its very wordiness.

You can then explain that CDOs are dodgy financial products which were bundled together and bought by investors, when in fact they were based on virtually worthless underlying assets. This explanation is not only highly simplistic, but also a bit factually wrong. It doesn’t matter. Now that you’re in the realm of intellectuals, facts don’t matter; only delivery and concept-dropping count for anything in this rarefied space.

This explanation will allow others to clarify that, essentially, what went wrong was that people passed off worthless assets as being more valuable than they were. Again, this is not true, at least not in the sense of the word true as it pertains to the truth. It is, however, the ideal position to be in as a pseudo-intellectual. From here, you can reassure people that, yes, there is a relatively simple moral message at the heart of this complex phenomenon and that one merely has to have the knowledge to wade through the technical details to understand the kernel of folk wisdom contained within this cautionary tale.

If someone probes further, then you have probably already done enough, so an exit strategy can be employed with a 95% chance of passing yourself off as an intellectual. One exit might be to simply say, “Hey, we’re at a party, I’d love to discuss derivatives [CDOs aren’t derivatives but it won’t matter] all day, but I don’t want to bore the pants off everyone”. After all, Freestone’s 8th Rule is: the more casual you are about knowledge, the more impressive it is. If you appear to be someone who not only knows the causes of the GFC, but is also so effortlessly learned that they can dismiss further talk in favour of socialising, then you are indeed a consummate smarty.

The other strategy would be to explain that there are further causes, but that they are part of a complicated series of problems involving regulatory reform and corporate governance. Again, actually use the words in a nice sentence. If you say, “Yeah, there’s more stuff about the legal side of things,” you will falter. If you are the sort of person who throws out phrases like “regulatory reform” in effortless conversation, then it doesn’t even matter if people believe you — you have already become so verbose, so smart-sounding that your diction alone will cement you as an intellectual. From here it’s simply a matter of taking the boy/girl home and shagging them. And it’s here, I’m afraid, that this advice column reaches its limits.

This article originally appeared in Woroni in 2011.

The blog of Jamie Freestone and Mathew McGann