What is the most misunderstood concept in economics? - The Chronicle

What is the most misunderstood concept in history?

QUOTE.
The most misunderstood concept in history is objectivity. I entered the academic world in the aftermath of 1960s idealism with the faith that the truth would set me, and society, free. I thought, "Let's study the past, identify the wrongs done, and correct them" -- an idea that presumed confidence in both human authority in the world and our ability to objectively establish what was wrong in society.

Objectivity as an ideal for historians, however, soon lost favor. In the 1970s, historians began a quest to include those who had been left out of our typical narratives: blacks, women, the working class. Influenced by the countercultural influences of the 60s, those practicing this "new history" often dismissed old history as biased in favor of white, male elites in the West, and tended to celebrate those forgotten people without subjecting them to the same tough-minded criticism that they were applying to the old elites.

Postmodernist thought in the 80s continued to undermine historians' notions of objectivity, and for many younger historians, the pursuit of truth held about the same importance as looking for the Loch Ness monster. They presumed instead that all reality is constructed according to internal or group perspective, mainly by class, race, or gender. With reality so fractured by our limited perspectives, they felt, it is therefore impossible to determine an objective truth -- and is, in fact, misguided to even try.

The problem was that the academy's dismissal of objectivity set us against the larger public that likes to read history and think historically. The average nonacademic person believes that historical truth can be established, or at least approximated, and that the value of history is its ability to teach us actually what our experience has been. This divide between academic history and what the public understands about the past has resulted from the intellectuals' too-casual dismissal of the human capacity to seek truth, which has undermined our ability to shape understandings of the past outside the academy.
UNQUOTE. Emphasis added.

So writes Robert J. Norrell, professor of history at UT Knoxville.

It is an interesting take to the question posed. A concept that is misunderstood by both the public and the historians - the historians because it leads them into unproductive nihilism, the public because it misunderstands what academic historians are about. Norrell's answer goes to the core of what history is about. It is a sad commentary on where post modern historians have led us.

I believe economists have a good understanding of what economics is about. Many of us are saying, please understand me, the economist. Understand where I am coming from. Economics is not about making money - which is what most of the public thinks. It is about managing scarce resources.

Economics is misunderstood.

The consequences are serious. If you believe economics is about making money, then you believe the public policy prescriptions of economists are driven by that agenda - and you will dismiss what we have to say. (via Instapundit)