Transcript:

We need to save for our future. The country’s becoming prosperous. We need to share their prosperity with their citizens and let them spend. That China, for example, consumes less than 40% of its GNP is hardly . . . is hardly appropriate. We need to find the forum that will connect, not a limited set of aging societies dominated by the Atlantic Ocean, but a much wider set of rapidly emerging societies to provide the function of being a kind of global steering committee as we address central global concerns. We need to find ways in the United States to support a more inclusive democracy and a more inclusive prosperity. If our people are going to be willing to accept the kind of international role that the United States need to take, if the world is going to remain stable, some of that goes to healthcare; some of that goes to the . . . the tax system and much, much else. We need to forge some kind of international approach to dealing with what are really the existential threats around nuclear weapons, around nuclear proliferation, around global warming – two events that have the chance to profoundly change the terms of life on earth 50 or more . . . 100 years from now.

Transcript:

For us it’s going to be regaining our balance after the last eight years. Power depends on legitimacy, and legitimacy depends on a perception of competence. And in important ways we’ve sacrificed that. For us, it’s a matter of crafting an international system that both enables countries to flourish, and at the same time sets some parameters within which they flourish. I think it’s harder to know just what the right questions even are with respect to the revolution in the life sciences. It’s easier to see how it can go wrong. People can _______ because they’re scared of it and cause it to show up elsewhere. People can let the genie out of the bottle in ways that they later come to regret. People can move too slowly, and as a result miss potential huge opportunities. I think all of these more negative outcomes are risks. I think they’re risks that will be exacerbated if the United States abdicates in the establishment of international norms in these areas, because I think for all our failings, the kinds of norms that we establish are likely to be more constructive than the kinds of norms that would be established in our absence.

Transcript:

I suspect in the election Iraq, economic security for middle class val . . . middle class families. Attitudes towards the social issues are likely to be central concerns in the election rather than these longer term and more profound challenges. But I suspect the debates over those issues will give a chance for candidates to demonstrate their philosophical orientation, and perhaps something about the . . . their competence as potential leaders and managers of the federal government.

Recorded On: 6/13/07

Transcript:

Well I wrote on a graduate school application that while some children were taught to believe in God, I came to believe in the power of systems analysis. And I suppose ours was a family where a certain form of analytic reasoning was something that was just in the air and part of what was discussed at the dinner . . . at the dinner table. And certainly we had lots of schemes for allocating the rights to watch what was the only TV set in the family. But actually, economics didn’t play a large role in my childhood. I left high school to go to MIT thinking I was going to pursue mathematics or physics as a field. I came to economics really because I wanted to use the kind of quantitative analytical tools one uses when thinking about the hard sciences; but also wanted to be involved in the issues of the day. And it seemed to me that economics gave one an opportunity to do both of those things. And I think the modes of reasoning around probabilities and uncertainties, around focusing on incentives, around thinking about issues of coordination that economics provide are enormously powerful – and when more and more widely applied, have great potential to make the world a better place.

I think that I developed the habit of mind very early on of not taking anything on faith. And so when somebody tells me “it’s generally accepted that . . .”, I tend to bristle and be skeptical about any proposition that’s said to be generally accepted. Most of the time things are generally accepted for a reason, and I’ve taken the posture to come to understand why it’s generally accepted to a greater extent. But sometimes, by having that reflexive skepticism and proclivity to challenge, you’ll learn that the emperor doesn’t have any clothes. You’ll learn that it’s less a proposition than a platitude, and that’s how interesting things start to. . . start to develop. So I try to maintain the habit of mind of skepticism, and I try very hard also to not live with contradictory belief. And so I find myself constantly balancing the different things that I know; and when they seem inconsistent with each other, try to understand which one is right, or what the right synthesis is. Sometimes that leads to productive approaches. Sometimes that leads me to change my mind. Often it leads me to feel more secure in my prior belief; but without those exercises of challenge, I find it very hard to know and to believe things with conviction. You know this is a kind of approach to thinking, and approach to ideas, that’s very much the habit of science. It’s very much the habit of debate; but it’s something that is somewhat less fashionable than it once was.

We have an administration that takes pride in the fact that its policies are based on faith and conviction rather than reason and evidence. In a very different corner in large parts of the academic world – the parts of the academic world that would almost define themselves by the opposition to what the administration stands for – there’s a belief that truth is an arbitrary social construct, or a reflection . . . or a reflection of power relations rather than reality. And the great virtue of debate is respect for each other’s positions. And I have very much the opposite sense. The great virtue of debate is to understand it better, and you come closer to a better answer. So those are the sort of habits that are . . . habits of mine that lie behind the different things that I do.

I think in some cases, it’s a comfortable world view if you lack the analytic techniques to deal with data and evidence, that it’s comfortable to develop theories that render them less relevant. And that, I think, is certainly a part . . . is certainly a part of the story. I think another part of the story is that people develop a conviction that you can’t know things and, you know. And in some ultimate, philosophical sense that may be true; but decisions have to be made and people do make decisions. And it seems to me that it’s better to think about more informed decisions than less informed decisions; but with the luxury of not needing to decide, it’s easier to take the relaxed view of what constitutes truth, and what need there is for evidence than when there are consequential choices that, if made more wisely, will either have enormous benefits for people or have enormous costs to people. So I think the feeling of responsibility for action – which I’ve been fortunate to have in my time outside and inside the university – probably creates a greater sense of responsibility to debate.

I think the lens through which I see things is . . . is analytic. It is analytic. It is evidence-based. It is based on a need for internal consistency. And I think the discipline that thinks about questions relating to the flow of capital and the distribution of income in those ways is the discipline that we call economics. But those habits of thought are important if you wanna think about the future of relations between the United States and China. Or if you wanna think about how resources should be allocated to different parts of research and the life sciences. Or if you want to fight crime effectively. So I don’t think it’s really the economics of pro . . . to the world, but I . . . I do try to consistently bring to bear a focus on data, on thinking about incentives, on thinking about outcomes, and thinking about how systems can be modified to produce better outcomes. And I think thinking systematically in that way can drive better outcomes.

I don’t think if you’re thinking about your relationship with . . . thinking about my relationship with my children, or my thinking about the play I enjoyed a couple of . . . a couple of weeks ago, that’s not about taking an analytic perspective. That’s about something . . . things that are very different. But in the professional spheres that I’ve chose, I think that being resolutely analytic is the way to get the best thinking.

I’m proud of my . . . proud of my identity as Jewish, and took great pride in my children’s bat mitzvahs and bar mitzvahs. But in thinking about the kinds of questions we have been discussing, the supernatural or faith do not play an important role in my thinking; though clearly in thinking about some aspects of the very important role that faith plays in other spines is something one has to very fully recognize.

Transcript:

I think when somebody writes the history of our time 250 years from now, the two largest stories in it will be the rise of Asia and the developing world where living standards are increasing so spectacularly rapidly. That in a matter of a few decades, countries enjoy more growth than the United States has since the American Revolution . . . how that impacts the billions of people in these countries and how that impacts the world system. And I think the second defining feature of our time will be the developments in the life sciences that are going to profoundly change our conceptions of human nature; that are going to free people from pain and suffering at a rate and on a scale that has never been seen before. You know, we are increasingly developing the capacity to change the way people think, to change the way people behave. How we’re going to manage all of that; how we’re going to manage the life science side of all that; how we’re going to manage the remarkable things that are happening in information technology. And as those things come together, these two things, I think, will be the central stories of our time when history is written 250 years from now.

Transcript

I think that for all its problems, the American system does stand out for its openness, for its reduced insistence on conformity, for its commitment to reason. And therefore I’m hopeful that we will find our way, and that leadership from the United States will be essential in shaping the way all these developments play out internationally.

Transcript:

I hope we are moving to a world in which the range of human opportunity will be expanded and will have steadily expanded in the years ahead. And part of that is the . . . what’s created as people become educated; as people are free from pain; as people’s material capacity increases and they get the ability to broaden their world, whether it’s in the different clothes that they can wear, or the access to the world that telephone or TV or Internet connection can provide. For me it’s about an ever-expanding provision of opportunity to an ever-growing number of people. And I see the kinds of opportunities that I’ve had, contrast them with the opportunities that a previous generation has had. Look ahead to the kinds of opportunities that my children will have. And I don’t think that’s a process that ever stops, but I think there’s a vast amount we can do to promote more opportunity for more people.

Transcript:

So it seems to me that technology that is brought by science, and the way in which that technology is organizes and applied, is the central force that is . . . that drives . . . that drives history. And that has both a scientific and a technological dimension. And it also has the social scientific dimension . . . the domain of economics; the domain of politics; the domain of sociology, of how society organizes itself as all of this changes. And I emphasize the importance of this in part not to say that human nature doesn’t in a profound way shape history; not to say that the forces of jealousy and anger and love and greed and the stuff of great tragedy aren’t central in shaping history. But they are relatively constant, it seems to me, the range of human emotion . . . the response to provocation of human beings. I doubt these things are fundamentally different today than they were in the times of the classics. And yet the world is hugely different today.

Recorded On: 6/13/07

Transcript:

I think in some cases, it’s a comfortable world view if you lack the analytic techniques to deal with data and evidence, that it’s comfortable to develop theories that render them less relevant. And that, I think, is certainly a part . . . is certainly a part of the story. I think another part of the story is that people develop a conviction that you can’t know things and, you know. And in some ultimate, philosophical sense that may be true; but decisions have to be made and people do make decisions. And it seems to me that it’s better to think about more informed decisions than less informed decisions; but with the luxury of not needing to decide, it’s easier to take the relaxed view of what constitutes truth, and what need there is for evidence than when there are consequential choices that, if made more wisely, will either have enormous benefits for people or have enormous costs to people. So I think the feeling of responsibility for action – which I’ve been fortunate to have in my time outside and inside the university – probably creates a greater sense of responsibility to debate.

Transcript:

You know I probably, to this point, have been sufficiently busy living my life that I probably haven’t focused a lot on measuring my life. But I hope I made the . . . I hope that I made the world a better place, and I think everyone can think about whether they make the world a better place . . . made the world a better place for their children, for their families . . . made the children . . . made the world a better place more broadly. That, I think is the . . . ultimately _______ test for me.

Recorded On: 6/13/07

Transcript:

We have an administration that takes pride in the fact that its policies are based on faith and conviction rather than reason and evidence. In a very different corner in large parts of the academic world – the parts of the academic world that would almost define themselves by the opposition to what the administration stands for – there’s a belief that truth is an arbitrary social construct, or a reflection . . . or a reflection of power relations rather than reality. And the great virtue of debate is respect for each other’s positions. And I have very much the opposite sense. The great virtue of debate is to understand it better, and you come closer to a better answer.

Recorded On: 6/13/07

Transcript:

How are we going to manage the rise of countries that will see their standards of living increase by factor of a hundred in a single human lifespan? What about the share of the income going to the top 1% nearly doubling $600,000 a person at the expense of $7,000 a person for everyone in the bottom 80% of the income distribution? How are we going to manage and keep stable a global financial system where the flow isn’t as it always was in the past with the Roman Empire or the British Empire from the center to the periphery, but it’s from the periphery to the center with the world’s greatest borrower being the world’s . . . being the world’s greatest power? So my job now, I think, is to think, to provoke, to have ideas, to prove the intellectual framework within which we all operate; to spur through argument, through entrepreneurship, through teaching others to think about the most important questions; and to lead us to be a more thoughtful, smarter and wiser society in dealing . . . in dealing with its major challenges. And if I’m able to do that by myself by encouraging the . . . the work of others, I think that will be a source of great satisfaction to me, and hopefully some contribution.

I think when somebody writes the history of our time 250 years from now, the two largest stories in it will be the rise of Asia and the developing world where living standards are increasing so spectacularly rapidly. That in a matter of a few decades, countries enjoy more growth than the United States has since the American Revolution . . . how that impacts the billions of people in these countries and how that impacts the world system. And I think the second defining feature of our time will be the developments in the life sciences that are going to profoundly change our conceptions of human nature; that are going to free people from pain and suffering at a rate and on a scale that has never been seen before. You know, we are increasingly developing the capacity to change the way people think, to change the way people behave. How we’re going to manage all of that; how we’re going to manage the life science side of all that; how we’re going to manage the remarkable things that are happening in information technology. And as those things come together, these two things, I think, will be the central stories of our time when history is written 250 years from now.

Respect to the developing of the rising world, are they going to be gradually welcomed members of a widening circle of opportunity? Or are they going to be angry outsiders crashing a restricted party? And if we can make it be the first, which would be great as anything that has happened in human history – if people feel it is the second, the consequences can be cataclysmic. I think it’s hard with respect to the developments in life science to even begin to think about what all the issues are going to be. You know, suppose there’s a pill created that can increase your IQ by 30 points, but it’s enormously expensive. What’s that gonna mean for equality of opportunity? Suppose there are ways of knowing in advance the likelihood that people will develop their diseases? What’s that gonna mean for decisions about couples getting married, or employers hiring people, not to mention insurance? What’s it going to mean if there are medicines that curb your . . . that curb your temper and in the same process reduce your passion? How are we going to feel about those things, and how are we going to think about managing them as a society? What is going to happen when there are computer programs or pieces of software that are able to have creative scientific ideas in certain spheres? Who’s gonna have access to those? Who’s gonna get the credit? How’s the system _______? These are just a few of the kinds of questions that . . . that could come. What I hope is that we will deal as a society with these things in a way that is thoughtful and rational. I worry that the teaching of more anti-evolution and intelligent design in the public schools than at any time since the Scopes trial, and the attitude in many non-scientific intellectual circles that denies that relevance of biology to almost any aspect of behavior, is leaving us in a problematic way . . . place with respect to the making of these decisions.

Transcript:

Recorded On: 6/13/07

Transcript:

Will it matter five years from now? Will it matter 10 years from now? If it won’t matter five years from now, if it won’t matter 10 years from now, why was it very important to me right now?

Transcript:

We need to save for our future. The country’s becoming prosperous. We need to share their prosperity with their citizens and let them spend. That China, for example, consumes less than 40% of its GNP is hardly . . . is hardly appropriate. We need to find the forum that will connect, not a limited set of aging societies dominated by the Atlantic Ocean, but a much wider set of rapidly emerging societies to provide the function of being a kind of global steering committee as we address central global concerns. We need to find ways in the United States to support a more inclusive democracy and a more inclusive prosperity. If our people are going to be willing to accept the kind of international role that the United States need to take, if the world is going to remain stable, some of that goes to healthcare; some of that goes to the . . . the tax system and much, much else. We need to forge some kind of international approach to dealing with what are really the existential threats around nuclear weapons, around nuclear proliferation, around global warming – two events that have the chance to profoundly change the terms of life on earth 50 or more . . . 100 years from now.

They said before that human nature was eternal, and that the environment and conditions of the environment are now changing very rapidly thanks to science and technology and probably at an accelerating pace. In many ways the challenge is to bring our public institutions and their capacity to innovate up to speed with the kind of capacity to innovate and change that mark an institution _________.

Transcript:

I think when somebody writes the history of our time 250 years from now, the two largest stories in it will be the rise of Asia and the developing world where living standards are increasing so spectacularly rapidly. That in a matter of a few decades, countries enjoy more growth than the United States has since the American Revolution . . . how that impacts the billions of people in these countries and how that impacts the world system.

And I think the second defining feature of our time will be the developments in the life sciences that are going to profoundly change our conceptions of human nature; that are going to free people from pain and suffering at a rate and on a scale that has never been seen before. You know, we are increasingly developing the capacity to change the way people think, to change the way people behave. How we’re going to manage all of that; how we’re going to manage the life science side of all that; how we’re going to manage the remarkable things that are happening in information technology. And as those things come together, these two things, I think, will be the central stories of our time when history is written 250 years from now.

Respect to the developing of the rising world, are they going to be gradually welcomed members of a widening circle of opportunity? Or are they going to be angry outsiders crashing a restricted party? And if we can make it be the first, which would be great as anything that has happened in human history – if people feel it is the second, the consequences can be cataclysmic. I think it’s hard with respect to the developments in life science to even begin to think about what all the issues are going to be. You know, suppose there’s a pill created that can increase your IQ by 30 points, but it’s enormously expensive. What’s that gonna mean for equality of opportunity? Suppose there are ways of knowing in advance the likelihood that people will develop their diseases? What’s that gonna mean for decisions about couples getting married, or employers hiring people, not to mention insurance? What’s it going to mean if there are medicines that curb your . . . that curb your temper and in the same process reduce your passion? How are we going to feel about those things, and how are we going to think about managing them as a society? What is going to happen when there are computer programs or pieces of software that are able to have creative scientific ideas in certain spheres? Who’s gonna have access to those? Who’s gonna get the credit? How’s the system _______? These are just a few of the kinds of questions that . . . that could come. What I hope is that we will deal as a society with these things in a way that is thoughtful and rational. I worry that the teaching of more anti-evolution and intelligent design in the public schools than at any time since the Scopes trial, and the attitude in many non-scientific intellectual circles that denies that relevance of biology to almost any aspect of behavior, is leaving us in a problematic way . . . place with respect to the making of these decisions.

I think they’ll . . . I think we’ll get to the best place if we debate them and discuss them in the freest possible. . . in the freest possible way with as many perspectives brought to bear as possible. And out of the argument will I think . . . Out of the best argument, we are likely to see the best kinds of outcomes. But that’s gonna require brining many people to the table for that argument. That’s gonna require putting a premium on really understanding the issues for those who are going to be involved in the argument. That’s gonna put a premium on being open to points of view that may, at first, seem unwise or unfa . . . or unfashionable. And those are the processes and aspects of the process that I think are likely to lead to better outcomes. I think that for all its problems, the American system does stand out for its openness, for its reduced insistence on conformity, for its commitment to reason. And therefore I’m hopeful that we will find our way, and that leadership from the United States will be essential in shaping the way all these developments play out internationally.

For us it’s going to be regaining our balance after the last eight years. Power depends on legitimacy, and legitimacy depends on a perception of competence. And in important ways we’ve sacrificed that. For us, it’s a matter of crafting an international system that both enables countries to flourish, and at the same time sets some parameters within which they flourish. I think it’s harder to know just what the right questions even are with respect to the revolution in the life sciences. It’s easier to see how it can go wrong. People can _______ because they’re scared of it and cause it to show up elsewhere. People can let the genie out of the bottle in ways that they later come to regret. People can move too slowly, and as a result miss potential huge opportunities. I think all of these more negative outcomes are risks. I think they’re risks that will be exacerbated if the United States abdicates in the establishment of international norms in these areas, because I think for all our failings, the kinds of norms that we establish are likely to be more constructive than the kinds of norms that would be established in our absence.

Oh I don’t know. I suspect in the election Iraq, economic security for middle class val . . . middle class families. Attitudes towards the social issues are likely to be central concerns in the election rather than these longer term and more profound challenges. But I suspect the debates over those issues will give a chance for candidates to demonstrate their philosophical orientation, and perhaps something about the . . . their competence as potential leaders and managers of the federal government.

Transcript:

I think I’m more optimistic than I would have been 10 or 20 years ago.  I’m more optimistic because I see more lives being made better, more _____ than at any time of the history of the planet.  I’m more optimistic because I see the tremendous potential of the United States.  I see the resilience of a global economy that has proven more resilient to all kinds of shocks, from Russia’s default, to Mexico’s near . . . near . . . near default.  It’s proven itself more resilient than many would have supposed.  I see here at Harvard the tremendous commitment to transcend selfishness on the part of an extraordinarily able group of young . . . of young people who we assemble.  All of that together probably makes me have more optimism – though a worried optimism – than I would have had 10 or 20 years ago.

Recorded On: 6/13/07

Transcript:

I think the overwhelming force that shapes the world that we have today is new knowledge, science and its application through technology. Living standards were essentially the same in ancient Athens and in 1800. People lived to the age of _____. A century ago, children earned . . . no one earned . . . Essentially no one had a vacation. Life expectancy was 47. The . . . Most people never ventured more than a hundred miles from the place where they were born. It’s completely different now, and it’s completely different because of what technology has brought, and because the expectation of the continuing gains from technology is imbedded in a way that hasn’t been there in the human experience before. We take it as a cliché that it is a reasonable question for someone running for president to discuss, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” From the vast majority of the human experience, there would have been no particular reason to think that people would be better off than they were four years ago. So it seems to me that technology that is brought by science, and the way in which that technology is organizes and applied, is the central force that is . . . that drives . . . that drives history. And that has both a scientific and a technological dimension. And it also has the social scientific dimension . . . the domain of economics; the domain of politics; the domain of sociology, of how society organizes itself as all of this changes. And I emphasize the importance of this in part not to say that human nature doesn’t in a profound way shape history; not to say that the forces of jealousy and anger and love and greed and the stuff of great tragedy aren’t central in shaping history. But they are relatively constant, it seems to me, the range of human emotion . . . the response to provocation of human beings. I doubt these things are fundamentally different today than they were in the times of the classics. And yet the world is hugely different today. And so if one asks what it is that changed, I think one has to ultimately bring that back to science and technology and the modes of social organization that bring them forth; and the condition that are application.

Transcript:

I think the lens through which I see things is . . . is analytic. It is analytic. It is evidence-based. It is based on a need for internal consistency. And I think the discipline that thinks about questions relating to the flow of capital and the distribution of income in those ways is the discipline that we call economics. But those habits of thought are important if you wanna think about the future of relations between the United States and China. Or if you wanna think about how resources should be allocated to different parts of research and the life sciences. Or if you want to fight crime effectively. So I don’t think it’s really the economics of pro . . . to the world, but I . . . I do try to consistently bring to bear a focus on data, on thinking about incentives, on thinking about outcomes, and thinking about how systems can be modified to produce better outcomes. And I think thinking systematically in that way can drive better outcomes.

I don’t think if you’re thinking about your relationship with . . . thinking about my relationship with my children, or my thinking about the play I enjoyed a couple of . . . a couple of weeks ago, that’s not about taking an analytic perspective. That’s about something . . . things that are very different. But in the professional spheres that I’ve chose, I think that being resolutely analytic is the way to get the best thinking.

You know I probably, to this point, have been sufficiently busy living my life that I probably haven’t focused a lot on measuring my life. But I hope I made the . . . I hope that I made the world a better place, and I think everyone can think about whether they make the world a better place . . . made the world a better place for their children, for their families . . . made the children . . . made the world a better place more broadly. That, I think is the . . . ultimately _______ test for me.

Transcript:

I hope we understand how data, and not just a ______ argument, can inform thinking about economic decisions to a greater extent because of the kinds of techniques and the kinds of approaches I pursued when I was a research economist. I hope we’re bringing more of that kind of analytic energy to bear on questions like health and education because of the work I did in the development field at the World Bank. I hope that history will judge that the policies that I supported President Clinton in pursuing will be judged to have promoted a prosperity that made lives better for millions of people in this country and tens of millions abroad by being wisely crafted, and crafted in line with economic realities . . .being reasoned-based. And I hope that the initiatives that I started at Harvard will be carried through in ways that will cause the university to be seen not just as a great iconic institution for itself, but as a much larger institution promoting the social good, whether it’s through its financial aid, equal opportunity policies; whether it’s through the contributions it makes to science; whether it’s through a much greater engagement with the rest of the world ______. So I hope that I will be seen as someone who raised science to what was possible in all the things that he did; and that by raising the sights, he caused more to happen than otherwise would have taken place.

Oh I don’t know. That’s . . . That’s for others to judge; but I guess I am somebody who believes that the more important something is – perhaps even the more sensitive it is – the more important it is to think carefully about it. And that part of thinking carefully about it is thinking about every possible perspective on it and being willing to explore every possible perspe . . . every possible perspective on it. That’s something that I always try to do. I’ve never been comfortable making a decision unless I felt that I understood the downsides of my decision as clearly as I . . . as anyone I could have access to understood the downsides of the decision, because only then did I feel I had really weighed the costs. I always think it’s hugely important to try to understand – you may completely reject it – but to understand what the other perspective is in any situation. So I will always be asking people, “What’s the best argument for the opposite position?” Or how do people see it from the other pers . . . other perspective, you know? I was talking to somebody the other day who was very upset about a grade she had . . . grade she had gotten and wanting to protest it, change it and so forth. And I said to her, “It sounds like . . . it sounds like an injustice took place here. But if you want to be effective here, you’ll be able to tell me how the world looks from the point of view from the person who gave you that grade. And maybe the person who gave you that grade will say, ‘Gosh, I was an unreasonable, bigoted, unthinking person, and you showed me that I’m wrong. And so I’ll change the grade.’” But probably a more plausible path is that the person will see that there’s a broader perspective to take, and will understand why, by taking a broader perspective, they can produce a more constructive outcome. So that’s always the kind of way which I have thought about problems, and it’s, I think, the kind of thing that frankly is central for universities to try to encourage.

That too is for others to . . . others . . . others to judge. I think I’m probably too impatient. I’m probably impatient with people who don’t seem to be following lines of argument. I’m impatient with people who engage through platitudes. I’m people . . . impatient with people who are committed – sometimes probably for good reason, sometimes not – to status quo or preservation of their prerogative, and I think the vice of a virtue I like to have of always having the greatest ambition for what I can accomplish, or the institution I’m part of can accomplish. The vice associated with that virtue is impatie . . . is impatience that sometimes can lead things not to speed up, but to slow down, and sometimes can lead to more friction than I’d like.