- A broad principle based criterion to avoid being too prescriptive and limiting on innovation and practice;
- The rationale for the choice; and
- Some illustrations of what the application of the criterion might mean both in terms of what we might expect to see (✔ ) and not to see (×). We hope this serves to better explain the criterion in practice. We would expect some sort of body, with diverse representation, to make final assessments, but we will explore how this might work in further dialogues.
These are now closed for comment. See revised criteria here based on comments below
1. Recognition of the existence and potential value of a range of different perspectives from economics and other disciplines for understanding economic related issues.
Rationale: This is the core value of those who take a pluralist approach to understanding the economy.
✔ Reading lists include authors from different schools of thought in economics and from other disciplines.
× All approaches to understanding economic related issues are treated as equally valid in all circumstances (ie “anything goes”).
× The term ‘economics’ is used as if there was a unified single methodological approach to understanding economic related issues.
Rationale: This is crucial to ensure pluralism is genuine and not tokenistic.
× All perspectives covered focus on individual decision making (e.g. neo-classical, game theory and behavioral economics) and ignore social dimensions.
× Perspectives are mostly taught in silos without identifying key interactions between them.
3. Economic perspectives are taught within a historical context exploring the interaction with economic, political and social history.
Rationale: This will ensure a broad overview of economic thinking including neo-classical thinking but always put in a wider context rather than being taught as a stand-alone objective science.
✔ Interdisciplinary masters programmes include in a required unit or units, an introductory session or sessions on the history of economic thought.
× Neo-classical economics is presented as an objective science that supersedes previous perspectives.
4. Economic perspectives taught include viewing economic systems as subsystems of ecological systems.
Rationale: Given the current ecological crisis, this should be an essential element of teaching.
× The environment is only treated as an input to and a sink for economic systems.
5. Teaching should embed discussion of theory in richly described real-world issues from diverse situations.
Rationale: Economics has sometimes fitted data, often of questionable quality, to theories.
✔ Emphasis is put more on inductive than deductive reasoning and in the latter case a range of starting assumptions are explored.
✔ Important links between economic, social and political spheres are not ignored (e.g. inequality or conditioning from advertising) and a systemic analytical approach is taken.
✔ Perspectives and issues from the North and South, and different races, social classes etc are included.
× Real world examples are chosen on the basis that they are the best fit to theories.
6. Teaching should explore and support understanding of the limitations and embedded values of a range of sources of evidence including but not limited to data
Rationale: Economics can a narrow range of evidence ignoring qualitative evidence and results from other disciplines. Data often has theories embedded in them.
✔ Qualitative evidence is included as a valid source.
✔ Representations and interpretations of the economy are made explicit and questioned.
× Data is presented as if it is objective without any discussion of its sources or the underlying representations and interpretations.
× Qualitative evidence is ignored.
Rationale: Critical awareness and creative development of economic perspectives are essential for economic learning both professionally and personally.
✔ Examining what policy directions emerge from using different economic perspectives to address real world issues.
✔ Engagement with the economic perspectives of diverse communities e.g. through placements in companies, NGOs and community groups.
✔ Exploration of the impact of background, influences and values on what economic perspectives individuals and groups take (e.g. the echo chamber effect).
✔ Include exercises to support reflection on the impact of different perspectives, biases and assumptions such as serious games and role playing.
✔ Support students to diversity the range of sources they use for learning and build their ability to learn to learn.
× Programmes only involve lecture programmes supporting passive learning.
8. The department(s) providing the programme(s) are committed to continue building their capacity and culture to support a pluralist approach to teaching about the economy.
Rationale: Pluralism and interdisciplinarity practice requires ongoing development and support
✔ Departments have a recruitment strategy to build the range of their expertise.
✔ Departments encourage interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary dialogues building relationships across departments and with communities outside the university.
× Departments are only focused on their own discipline’s research.
61 responses to “Draft Criteria for teaching economics from a pluralist perspective – now closed for comment”
An excellent and thought-provoking set of criteria.
4) suggests that the list is provisional, and should be open to revision. (I think this would be a Good Thing) At the moment, the interaction of economic and ecological systems has considerable salience – but in the future it is at least possible that other systems’ perceived importance might be sufficient to warrant specific mentions. (In the past, religious systems arguably might have been in this position.)
Heterodoxy should be open also to epistemological considerations: what constitutes the refutation of a theory or hypothesis, and what role, if any, could a refuted theory play?
Thanks, Jonathan. Yes, the governance system will allow for future revision. These criteria cannot be set in stone as our understanding and practice should develop over time.
In point 2 and the matter of perspectives, pluralism surely needs us to apply different perspectives to the various schools of thought, but when we do this there are complications and confusions because some of them disagree and it is hard to see where, without better definitions of what some of them mean.
Surely the right thing to do is to begin with the taking of a most broad or distant perspective so that everything can be included (but not so broad that as Keynes claimed, “in the long run we are all dead!”). Such a broad perspective is as provided in my model for the whole seamless social system (See SSRN 2865571), and after its establishment, as the basic scientific hypothesis, its various aspects and parts can then be given the pluralistic treatment in the greater detail that it surely needs.
If we think we can begin by being fully pluralistic, we will cease to see the wood for the trees!
Many thanks for this discussion and Henry’s proposal in the first place. I did not follow all the arguments so what I state below may double up on some. As a lecturer on Strategic Foresight (SF), I would like to make a few key statements as I see them fit in our context here:
– it is custom in SF to argue for a pluralistic view, just like a caleidoscope to develop not the image of the future, but our image, being guided by our morals
– Value discussions are an absolute must here
– Value systeme and worldviews are changing, but more so right now
– Age cohort analysis is crucial
– SF has two dimensions, one looking at the midterm to prepare for it, the other to look at the longterm to design for it
– We have to avoid inacceptable futures, leaving them to our kids to deal with them
Thanks, Jan. It would seem that Strategic Forsight very much is consistent with the accreditation criteria. Thanks Henry
Thanks. What is the stance towards the UN Principles of Responsible Management Education?
I am not sure, Jan. How do you think they relate to the criteria? Are they consistent or not?
Henry,I should think that they correspond very well in their essence with your concept. Particulary the following ones:
Principle 1 | Purpose: We will develop the capabilities of students to be future generators of sustainable value for business and society at large and to work for an inclusive and sustainable global economy.
Principle 2 | Values: We will incorporate into our academic activities, curricula, and organisational practices the values of global social responsibility as portrayed in international initiatives such as the United Nations Global Compact.
Principle 4 | Research: We will engage in conceptual and empirical research that advances our understanding about the role, dynamics, and impact of corporations in the creation of sustainable social, environmental and economic value.
Principle 6 | Dialogue: We will facilitate and support dialog and debate among educators, students, business, government, consumers, media, civil society organisations and other interested groups and stakeholders on critical issues related to global social responsibility and sustainability.
Thanks so much for the awesome tips. They make a lot of sense and I know they work because I have tried some myself. Thanks for giving hope and guidance to teachers.
Thanks, Hamani. This is very much a joint effort that has benefited from a wide range of people. I am glad you think it is useful.
On Criteria #3. Economics needs to be open to learn from the emergent future. That is, it should not be restricted to learning from past history. To get an idea please consider my thought experiments on the recent Twitter hashtag #HomoPragmaticist to be able to be fully pluralistic.
The first tweet of May 8, 2019, is in this link https://twitter.com/gmh_upsa/status/1126188552348475394
But Criteria #3 is about understanding the interaction between economic thinking and the wider forces in society rather than learning from past history per se. It is about understanding how economic thinking is a product of its time. This seems distinct from the question of (understanding what is) and ‘learning from the emergent future’ – if we can agree what that means. I think this is more relevant to criteria #5 and seems allowed for within that criteria, no?
It applies to both Criteria #3 and #5 that are restricted to Pragmatism and don’t consider all the effects as does an action oriented scientific attitude of the #HomoPragmaticist that;s able to learn from the emergent future with abductions (complemented by deductions and inductions) that at times, like in recent decades under the #ComputingBigShift is not the continuation of the past as in “Figure 2.1. Piero Formica’s book ‘The Role of Creative Ignorance: Portraits of Path Finders and Path Creators'” repeated with permission in the essay “Helping emerge the #SystemicCivilization for #GlobalDebout ( https://medium.com/@gmh_upsa/helping-emerge-the-systemiccivilization-for-globaldebout-1cc94d6e4282 ).”
But is there anything in the criteria that exclude this approach? We are trying not to be prescriptive so we would not require it.
I suggest there is. Contrary to the #Homopragmaticist that leads to the monism of the #BrightGlobalization and that which unites theory with practice via abductions, the pluralism criteria approach keeps right now in place Cartesian dualisms, for example, globalization versus antiglobalization and that which separates, theory from practice that no longer should apply.
I don’t understand how the criteria above do that. Can you quote words in the criteria which are a problem for you.
Thank you for this very important dialogue that I understand is based on the primacy of the whole, as opposed to the primacy of the parts, which is traditional of the service provided by economists to representative democracy. Next I wonder if might “quote words in the criteria which are a problem for you.” Right at the top of the general criteria for promoting economic pluralism. I quote: “A broad principle based criterion to avoid being too prescriptive and limiting on innovation and practice.” While that’s not a problem for teaching economics from a pluralistic perspective, I respectfully understand that saying “We are trying not to be prescriptive so we would not require it,” limits the emergence of institutional innovations and practice, like the one in the story “Going beyond the #8thwaytothink ( https://medium.com/@gmh_upsa/going-beyond-the-8thwaytothink-fe4cf756e4e5 ).”
Jose, the idea of the accreditation scheme is to create and promote a group of lecturers around the world who share a set of values that we think are important to facilitate learning and innovation. However clearly that is not the end of the matter and we will be facilitating dialogue and learning amongst this group so your views can be part of the dialogue. I am not sure how prescription limits the emergence of innovations. I would think it is absolutely the opposite. Prescription creates rigidity and restricts innovation, surely. Furthermore it excludes people who do would sign up to the broad values but not the particular prescriptions. So it is great you are part of the dialogue and your views are heard. It is up to others to make of them what they will but we would not enforce them on others.
Henry thank you for your kind reply. Do you mean by “Accreditation” the structure through which teachers are recognized as meeting “Standards“ that ensure the integrity and accountability of the profession? What if Master level Economics is unable to produce standards like Engineering, which has been complemented since about two decades by Systems Architecting to deal on Pragmaticist issues that have such a level of complexity beyond pragmatic science while the Systemic Civilization remains in its entrepreneurial and growth stages? This last question is complemented, for example, by the story “About @PIEROFORMICA1 & @NickHixsonUK #GPDF19 post “Incubating Entrepreneurialism” ( https://medium.com/@gmh_upsa/about-pieroformica1-nickhixsonuk-gpdf19-post-incubating-entrepreneurialism-851f4c6145ad ),” that’s not to be taken lightly, as it involves many thought experiments.
No, not exactly. To be accredited masters programmes would need to meet the criteria in the above blog. Find out more by looking here.
Was I confused again by Criteria #3?
Not sure! Maybe we could discuss on Zoom easier. my email firstname.lastname@example.org
Any way, there must be continuity with the Master programmes. So the story of responding to “Incubating Entrepreneurialism”, you can see my view on the larger context, which updates the post “Is Drucker’s Management Challenges for the Systemic Civilization on the opposite side force field of academic privilege? ( https://grupomillenium.blogspot.com/2016/10/is-druckers-management-challenges-for.html ).” That post quotes Drucker saying:
This is a MANAGEMENT BOOK. It intentionally leaves out BUSINESS CHALLENGES – even very important ones such as the question of whether the Euro will displace the U.S. dollar as the world’s key currency, or what will SUCCEED the 19th century’s most successful economic inventions, the commercial bank and the investment bank. It intentionally does not concern itself with ECONOMICS – even though the basic MANAGEMENT changes (e.g., the emergence of knowledge as the economy’s key resource) will certainly necessitate radically new economic theory and equally radically new economic policy. This book does not concern itself with politics – not even with such crucial questions as whether Russia can and will recover as a political, military and economic power. It sticks with MANAGEMENT ISSUES.
Our first Zoom discussion ended without alignment. Today I browse “the online dialogue,” which led me to the quote below of Alan Freeman’s and Andrew Kliman’s paper “Beyond talking the talk: towards a critical pluralist practice,” 2006. Can I consider it as the method behind “Economic Pluralism” in order to compared it with Charles Sanders Peirce’s Pragmaticism method?
“… when a country collapses whilst implementing an economic recommendation, it is the people and not the advisors who are blamed. Our proposed reforms are intended to correct this by imposing on the economists a long-overdue responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.
“It may be thought that such a programme is normative and ethical, rather than positive or scientific. We will argue that, on the contrary, without formal guarantees of pluralism and critical method, economics does not function as a science. Our guiding principle is to identify those practices which society must impose on its economists, should it require these economists to provide them with scientifically valid information.”
No. That is just a particular perspective. The criteria are meant to set out what taking a pluralist approach means. We also define economic pluralism in our mission as “spaces for diverse voices, perspectives and approaches to understanding our economies” and believe this will “help co-create truly sustainable, resilient and inclusive (economies)”. That is broadly how we understand economic pluralism ie as a procedure or process rather than a particular type of economics. Hence likened economic pluralism to democracy.
Which scientific method, if any, is followed by Economic Pluralism?
An economic pluralism approach proposes that we gain knowledge from listening to and understanding a range of different perspectives and their evidence bases, and developing a capacity for listening, empathy and critical reflection. This allows us to collectively get a better understanding of complex phenomena, which we are unlikely to ever fully understand and will continue to involve a substantial level of uncertainty. This knowledge will also always be contested due to values inherent in different perspectives on these phenomena.
Please consider the post on item 2 under my post that starts with “It applies to both Criteria #3 and #5 that are restricted to Pragmatism and don’t consider all the effects as does an action oriented scientific attitude of the #HomoPragmaticist…
This is actually supposed to be comment 13 (not 12).
This is meant to be after my comment on item 11. As a #HomoPragmaticist action oriented scientific attitude suggestion, I propose that the way to address “The next to blow” column of The Economist’s article “Britain’s constitutional time-bomb ( https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/05/30/britains-constitutional-time-bomb ),” with the subtitle “Brexit is already a political crisis. Sooner or later it will become a constitutional crisis, too” is an example of a “Wicked” – to me anti-systemic – problem of The Wealth of Nations, that’s addressed with the opportunity of a constitutional innovation towards global-state of the interdependent #SystemicCivilization by “Going beyond the #8thwaytothink ( https://medium.com/@gmh_upsa/going-beyond-the-8thwaytothink-fe4cf756e4e5 ).”
As I understand that time is of the essence, please provide at least one alternative based on Economic Pluralism. Should The Economist become aware of the story “How effective is to delay the #HomoPragmaticist’s transformation advise? (https://medium.com/@gmh_upsa/how-effective-is-to-delay-the-homopragmaticists-transformation-advise-50438672ef36 )” and the Economic Pluralism alternative to the action oriented scientific attitude, if available, as a reply to their article?
Thanks for sharing this post,
is very helpful article.
Well, economic pluralism must include, which it currently lacks overall, an emphasis on scientific (physics) measurement. Economics is still an immature science (bold statement), well such is well know in the physics departments across the globe, due to it’s lack of an invariable value.
Secondly, an emphasis on its epistemological diversity which is currently settled upon two or possibly three.
Lastly, a more thorough understanding the historical, current, and developing modes of finance. Whereas the some mechanism of finance are available which economists don’t know and thus don’t prescribe solutions tailored to specific practical policies which can be implemented in today’s economy.
Hi Aaron, although some people might agree with you, more in the pluralism area consider that economics should not be seen as a science such as physics ie in some sense objective based only on neutral evidence. There are many reasons for this (& a whole question about what being a science really means), but I think the clearest reasons are that economics has a strong normative dimension ie it is about how we should organise our economy and that any forecasts of the future can (& are generally designed to) change the future. Clearly there is space for further debate on these issues within pluralism, but there doesn’t seem to be agreement to require this to be a shared value for the pluralist community. regards Henry
Aaron, hopefully the criteria on evidence, diversity and history of economic thought, cover your concerns. regards Henry
I’m generally happy with the main content (plus many of the comments), which seems to cover the key components pretty well. However, I wonder at the different approaches to the formulation of the principles: 1 and 2 are more like statements; 3, 4 and 8 are affirmative sentences; and 5, 6 and 7 are ‘should’ sentences. I would suggest all are rephrased like 3, 4 and 8.
Thanks, Francis, I have followed your advice (hopefully accurately) in the redraft.
On criterion 1:
I think we need to say at the very beginning (= crit. 1) that such pluralism is an epistemological device of cognition of the real world.
on criterion 2:
re. game theory — don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater: when you refer to GT, you obviously just refer to very standard forms and interpretations, rather than to evolutionary forms and institutional embeddings of GT.
on criterion 3:
we need to clarify that we need both socio-economic history a n d HET for contextualizing. it’s not quite clear so far, where you speak on which one.
on criterion 4:
perhaps we use the conception (the term) of “open systems”: economies are open systems as parts of the broader entire socio-economic-ecological system, and interacting with the social and ecological system in non-trivial ways.
on criterion 5:
i would not prefer inductive over deductive. both should be treated equallly for cognition. their interaction is what pushes recognition.
mentioning the systemic approach should be a separate criterion, perhaps on ontology: “systems” to be introduced as part of clarifying the ontological basis.
the same applies to the idea already included here, but explained later: “Heterogeneity” or “diversity” (of agents).
on criterion 6:
as there is no theory-independent measuring, we should apply the concept of PARADIGMS rather than analytical “theories”. those are not so easily “compared”, as they often are incommensurable, focussing on different aspects and angles of the real world.
Thanks, Wolfram. I have tried to incorporate as much as possible in the redraft except:
On criterion 3:
I am not sure how I can improve the drafting. Happy to receive specific suggestions.
On criterion 5:
I have added the idea of systems. I am not sure we need an extra criterion.
On criterion 6:
Not sure what this means for drafting as “theories” not mentioned.
I think the criteria are rather well-developed and explained. I do think however there should be two further criteria (Or some modification of the existing that incorporates these points in a frontal manner
(1) I think an ethical perspective is a requirement. Students need to be introduced to the ethical consequences of economic advice and decisions. DeMartino’s ‘I solemnly swear’ has an excellent discussion of this and a historic victory was made when the AEA (after a hundred years) finally adopted a code of ethics.
The connection to pluralism is straightforward: pluralism is an ethical duty. There are several reasons but top of the list is that it means the recipient (or victim) of economic advice is given the right to understand the different possible choices instead of being told it is the only ‘technically’ correct solution.
I would see this as the part of ‘curriculum design’ that is normally termed ‘the rationale’.
(2) I think something has to be said about assessment. Basically, to be harsh, students who respond to exam questions monotheoretically should fail. And students who manifest high competence in pluralism should get extra grades.
Those are the ‘major’ suggested changes. As regards the ‘theory-laden’ aspects of data, which are important I think ‘Data pluralism’ should be explicitly required. This simply means that the economist must consider whether she would reach different conclusions if she interpreted the data differently. An example is the World Inequality Database who propose that GNI is a better measure of inequality than GDP. So if a student is looking at the question of inequality, should they measure it using traditional GDP or GNI? The answer is ‘both’. If both measures lead to the same conclusion then that conclusions robust. If they lead to a different conclusion, the student needs to make a stab at explaining why the results differ and, if she makes a choice to opt for one measure in preference to the other, give a reason for doing it.
Not quite sure how to incorporate your first point. It seems this may be more relevant in terms of professional development or standards. I have added into criterion 2 the need to understand the implications of different theories for economic analysis and decisions….
On assessment, this will be covered in the question of evidence we would require in the accreditation assessment. I presume we would look at assessment processes. I have also added something in criteria 7 as this seems to be relevant to active learning.
On data pluralism, I have added text in criteria 4 which hopefully covers this.
Have a look and see what you think.
I absolutely agree with the proposal.
Economics is not a science – despite using mathematics to explore change etc -rather a lens through which to gain insight into how things work. Thus we need to be sure we have the right lens for all circumstances or we need to have different lenses through which to examine change.
Thanks, Mike. So do you think these criteria are in the right place in terms of producing graduates that can effectively support your sort of work?
Economics is a science, or rather a number of them that deal with its different aspects. As soon as one begins to categorize and describe the specifics, one introduces logical scientific techniques. Otherwise our subject remains in the same messy confusion, that we previously began to realize needs some improvement.
I am not sure what it means to say it is a science. It is clearly a social science and surely it differs significantly from a natural science. For a start it has a very important normative dimension and any propositions it produces about the future, effects the future as others react to them. The whole point of a pluralist approach is to recognise this and that the normative will always and rightly be contested with no ‘right’ answer.
I fail to understand how anyone can see economics as not being a science.
A science is the accumulation of knowledge which helps to explain a natural phenomena. The phenomena is first noticed possibly by its repetition and by induction, but a stage is reached when it begins to be explained by deduction instead. Some sciences employ experiments too, but when this is not possible, the theory and hypotheses on which this deduced knowledge is based still make it scientific. The use of definitions is a vital ingredient in these arguments, so it is easily possible for our subject of economics to lack these and to remain a vague mess, and one that as pluralistic-thinking seekers of truth we should be working to avoid.
It is a social science. Social sciences are different from natural sciences ie they don’t explain natural phenomena in the sense ‘natural’ is used in ‘natural’ science. There is also wide disagreement as to what being a science means or what methodologies count. Clearly all disciplines seek to use language that they define, but these are also disputed. We have to accept and understand these disputes and where they come from. That may make things a bit more messy but understanding and working through seeming ‘mess’ is a key part of education. ‘Messy’ or ‘wicked’ problems are a case in point. As can be seen from the debate, the pluralist community has a range of views in this area.
You’ve said “Perspectives and issues from the North and South, and different races, social classes etc are included.” You need to include gender/feminism.
Also you haven’t said anything specifically about unpaid work, needs to be named as an issue
Thanks, Valerie. Will do.
To #5, I would add the words in CAPS: “✔ Important links between economic, social, political AND ECOLOGICAL spheres are not ignored (e.g. inequality or conditioning from advertising) and a systemic analytical approach is taken.
and ✔ Perspectives and issues from the North and South, and FROM different races, social classes AND ECOLOGICAL REALITIES etc are included.
Concerning RATIONALES: I suggest that each rationale should take the form of a “This is.. or “This will.” sentence, for consistency as in the first two. The rationale in #6 is missing some words, and is therefore confusing.
In #7, there’s a typo: ✔ Support students to DIVERSIFY the range of sources they use
In #7 I might add: Include historical understanding about paradigm shifts, and their relevance to the evolution of economic thought.
In #8, I would add: “✔ Departments encourage greater gender diversity, to overcome the historical bias towards men.
Thanks, Guy. All very useful suggestions.
Thanks, Guy. I think I have captured these in the redraft. Do take a look.
I see that the other subject to which you give attention is about teaching economics at a pluralistic level. I suggest that a suitable frame-work should first be established so that the students can see in the most general terms about of what the subject consists.
In the short working paper SSRN 2600103 ” A Mechanical Model for Teaching Macroeconomics” (available through the internet), such a general means is provided for introducing students to the subject, and in particular to get them to think about how our social system works.
David, the purpose of requiring a history of economic thought is designed to do this. regards Henry
The historical thought framework is an example of how to widen the student’s knowledge, but it does not cover all of the actual situation that should be faced, when a student wants to know how our macroeconomics system actually works. I refer to my previous reference, which should help in resolving this matter.
And other elements would cover this. Again how the macroeconomics system actually works and should work is highly contested…
Henry, I hope you don’t see a difference between “how” and “should” here. I find that they are the same. We are discussing policy but basic structure.
As far as I can see, there is a strategic need for the use of logic and exacting words (with definitions where needed), to describe the operation of our social possible for it to be a true science, then it seems likely that the presenter is not providing the most straight and simple, clear and most possible explanation, and that this attitude is being taken in order to avoid the need for finally getting matters into the order that began with Adam Smith.
Given that there is a system to be described, then the model that results is the one I have already presented. I would like to be exposed to the arguments that contest its workings, after the people concerned have seen and properly understood it and the reasons behind it, in my presentation in SSRN 2866571 “Einstein’s Criterion Applied to Logical Macroeconomics Modeling”.
It high time that we stopped being vague and mysterious (and confused) and began to build up an implacable theory that tells the scientific truth. (And even if you don’t think mine is any good, we still very badly need one that is.)
David, you clearly have a particular perspective which pluralism would respect but I would not want to exclude people who disagree with you and many do. Pluralism is not imposing your views on others. There is a wide range of possibilities between confusion and ‘scientific truth’. Many would argue that there is no such thing possible in economics as values are so central. We would not want to to exclude this view which is held by many who would see themselves as pluralist. You need to respect and understand this view to fully partake in the pluralist community. Suggesting it is vague, mysterious and or confused does not seem to be respectful or understanding. Kind regards Henry
In my longer reply there was a simple error. I typed “this is policy” instead of “this is not policy”. Sorry about that!
Perhaps the site could allow a few moments for editorial corrections to be introduced, after the comment is initially posted?