Tim Harford in seven

x Sponsored content on Research Live and in Impact magazine is editorially independent.
Find out more about advertising and sponsorship.

1. Can you explain, in a nutshell, why we should embrace mess?

Tim Harford: The argument in my book is that we have a tendency to take organisational systems – targets, scripts, structures – that work very well in some parts of life, then try to impose them where they are not appropriate. A simple example: the philosophy that everything should have a place works well in the kitchen, or a library, but disastrously for the desks of most knowledge workers. People who try to keep everything tidy by filing and labelling their email, digital documents and paperwork suffer from ‘premature filing’ (yes, it’s a thing). They have clean desks, but they don’t actually understand their own filing system. Messier ‘pilers’ have been shown to have a better grasp of where their stuff is.

2. Is messiness to be encouraged even in areas where success is traditionally associated with order, such as science?

TH: I recommend that you look up the famous photograph of Einstein’s desk on the day he died. 

3. You talk about the importance of disruption in solving problems and stimulating creativity in individuals or groups; does this translate to a business level? Do start-up disruptors force established companies to up their game?

TH: Absolutely. The great economist John Hicks once said that “the best monopoly profits is a quiet life”. Nobody likes competition, but it does force us to raise our game.

4. Is it possible to force yourself – in isolation of others – to be more creative?

TH: Yes; I interviewed the musician Brian Eno while writing Messy and he advocates creative collaboration – he’s worked with U2, Coldplay, Phillip Glass, Devo and David Bowie – but he also has approaches that work independently. The most famous is his deck of cards, the ‘Oblique Strategies’ – full of creative provocations. 

5. As a champion of evidence and facts, how do you feel about the increasing trend among so many politicians to ignore both?

TH: I find the anti-intellectualism very discouraging. The idea that expertise is worthless and all statistics are lies seems to me to be a step down the road to book burning. But there are many hopeful signs, too: if you care about the facts and the evidence it’s never been easier to find intelligent analysis of both.

6. You have forged a career in calling out bad use of statistics – but is there a risk that, in doing so, public figures may be less likely to use empirical data to support a policy, cause or argument?

TH: I dispute the idea that that’s how I’ve forged a career. My first book and my column, The Undercover Economist, are about exploring the hidden forces that shape our economy and my BBC series, More or Less, is just as much about the good use of numbers as about shooting down errors.

I don’t think there is any sign whatsoever that politicians are tired of making statistical claims. What I most want to see is a greater interest in using statistics to understand the world and develop better policies, rather than as decoration for their rhetoric. All too often politicians use numbers as weapons, rather than as tools to build a better world.

7. Do you consider economics to be a science – and, if so, how can economic theory evolve and improve? What is its way of experimenting and moving theory forward?

TH: Economics is the study of the economy, which is a very broad thing to study. Some aspects of the economy can be rigorously studied using scientific tools such as randomised controlled trials. Other parts of the economy are harder to study in a scientific way – for example, economic history and macroeconomics. We just have to keep doing our best. 

Economists catch a lot of criticism for getting things wrong, but we have to recognise that economies are enormously complex and multifaceted. A good economist needs tools from complexity science to psychology and anthropology. It’s not surprising that we don’t always get things right.