23
- Discovered libertarianism through Ron Paul back in 08, then I read some Ayn Rand, was objectivist for a while, discovered Rothbard and AE, turned ancap.
About to turn 32. Discovered all of this last summer, after being interested in Ron Paul and the Fed for about a year. Before that I never thought much about politics or economics. I’ve been totally into “deep thinking” (philosophy I guess, though I’ve never actually read any texts; I’m fairly anti-reading in that subject) since age 6.
You know for some reason I always thought you were in your mid-twenties. Strange.
And if you only began to study AE last year, then you’re a damn quick learner.
Just turned 19 today. I became interested in Libertarianism at the age of 17 after stumbling across a video of Milton Friedman on youtube. That video sparked my interest and ever since then I’ve been compelled to find out more about Libertarianism.
Yeah I’m also more a ‘thinker’ than a reader, I simply can not read 300 pages without being sidetracked by a thought that leads me to google a question, read more opinions online, find a new paper/book and start reading that… it’s as if Google ismy dialectical teacher.
Anybody else has this?
Turned 18 a few days ago. I was turned on to AE by my older brother about 3 years ago and have since slowly transitioned from “traditionalist” conservatism to anarchism.
For me, the evolution was not a smooth road. It was punctuated by bouts of cognitive dissonance that resulted in me making periodic bursts toward anarchism. I would study an industry for months before accepting that the market could provide the pertinent goods and services until at last I came to this conclusion with respect to all industries and there was nothing left for government to do.
Ironically, I accepted the non-aggression principle long before I was an anarchist; I simply made exceptions and rationalizations that prevented me from having to take the axiom to its outermost limits. I did not become an anarchist until I became convinced of the economic viability of life without the state.
Yeah I’m also more a ‘thinker’ than a reader, I simply can not read 300 pages without being sidetracked by a thought that leads me to google a question, read more opinions online, find a new paper/book and start reading that… it’s as if Google ismy dialectical teacher.
Anybody else has this?
Sometimes my mind is so flooded with ideas that I cannot read more than a few pages at time before having to stop and jot down some thoughts (which often wind up taking several pages). Other times, I can read a hundred pages straight through without pausing. It really depends on what mood I’m in.
Grayson, if I remember correctly you teach economics at a university, has this changed the way you teach economics, or does the curriculum stay the same?
I’m surprised at how young everyone is, although I shouldn’t be too surprised since Internet communities are generally skewed to younger people.
I’m 29, was turned on to AE in 2008 due to Ron Paul’s campaign.
“Grayson, if I remember correctly you teach economics at a university”
Eh? No, you must be thinking of someone else…
Nope. I’m only 16. I started life as an environmentalist-liberal, eventually transitioning to a radical conservative. I was led to mises.org by the writings of DiLorenzo, and have been reading the dailies here for almost a year.
I’m 35 and found Mises and the Austrian school about eighteen months ago. It is nice to see alot of younger folks here taking an interest in important issues. I wish I would have alot sooner.
I am [censored] years old and (I don’t know what the question is but by reading the other answers) late 2007 (Ron Paul campaign).
“I’m 32. I started studying Austrian Economics last year. [EDIT: Oops. I have to correct myself. I was counting when I started live-blogging Menger’s Principles in January 2009 as when I started studying AE. But I just remembered I had read Rothbard’s History of Economic Thought (understanding very little of it at the time) before that (must have been late 2008).]”
Wow, going from an AE beginner to becoming a Staff member in 2 years. Impressive.
Ah, I must be confusing it with someone else. I could have sworn someone on this forum taught economics somewhere.
19-26
not everyone that ‘comes to AE’ is going to post on a message board. The Mises Academy classes seem to be a little older, not really old, but older than the average age here.
I too almost never read books. Other than reading TRTS for MA, I hadn’t read a book cover to cover since the 7th grade. Got through college without reading much (that was assigned) at all.
However, I do like reading articles, wether they be Mises Daily or for academic journals, and I eat Mises Media lectures for breakfast and dessert, sometimes as a snack.
I’m 18 and I’m pretty new to the subject. I went from conservative to conservative libertarian after reading 1984. I then started reading a lot more, became more and more libertarian, and got interested in economics and I appreciated free market concepts so much that it led me here.
The low ages are good news as are the dates at which people got into Austrian Economics. It shows that the base is going to grow rapidly because of the school’s post-crisis revival.
There’s this tendency to equate reading with studying, and extensive reading with deep study. People seem to feel idle if they are just pondering, rather than digging into a book. As a result, I think most people interested in learning end up reading way more than they can possibly digest. This isn’t just wasteful, but actually harmful to the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. In my own case, a 10:1 ratio of thinking to reading and a 100:1 ratio of thinking to (important) writing, is about where the sweet spot seems to be in terms of efficiency per unit time for political topics. Way more thinking time is ideal for deep conceptual philosophy and political theory based on it (1000:1), and of course less processing is required for more factual/historical works, for example (1:1 or 1:2 or even more could be possible).
Since most people here seem to be pretty gung ho about reading more, I’m going to be contrarian and give some considerations against over-reading:
- The propaganda effect. A single book contains myriad assertions and arguments in rapid-fire. There’s simply no way to properly take them all on unless you’re very familiar with the material and have already thought extensively about it. It’s just too much immersion in one person’s world view, especially when you realize almost everyone’s world view is mostly wrong, and when we read we are just looking to extract the gems without taking in any of the mind viruses. (Near impossible in practice; we are highly suggestible animals. Hence the 10:1 ratio. The danger is less for short works than long ones; however, if you do all your reading from one source that presents obvious inefficiencies as well.)
- Every hour spent reading is an hour you could have spent thinking things through without distraction. If you’re concerned that thinking on your own would lead you astray, that is a sure sign you need more practice thinking! Just like any other skill, you can only get good at thinking by doing it a lot. Thinking “as you read” is sure possible, but the question is the ratio of actual reading to actual undistracted thinking. You know in your own mind if you’ve really fully evaluated and considered all the implications of a given passage and its interconnections with other topics, and I suspect most people will find they haven’t reached that point until a 10:1 or even 20:1 ratio for something dense like Human Action.
- And most importantly and non-obviously, seeing a full explanation of a new concept deprives you of the opportunity to discover it for yourself. When you discover a concept yourself, you gain a far deeper understanding of it than you ever could by having it explained to you. When you’re directly taught it, that opportunity for ultra-deep understanding and clarity is effectively lost forever. To a thinker, this is a serious threat. I mostly just read to alert myself to new possible ideas and information, but I leave plenty of time to connect the dots myself. Sometimes we just need exposure to new ideas; but most of the time what we need is to go take a walk.
“We need less reading and more thinking.” -Amorey Gethin
Note: Obviously I’m not anti-reading or anti-book. Most everyday people could benefit from reading more intellectual works. I’m addressing specifically those who already read an awful lot (or think they need to) in subjects where careful conceptual analysis is central. The finer the concepts, the more thinking is needed. It is most definitely not a matter of faster is better, even if you’re just reading the very best thinkers. Remember that the ideal situation is that you come to the conclusion before you see it explained by a given author, not as a result of that explanation (even if the latter is of necessity much more common).