前面说过，学者凭出版物胜出。发表出版物的目标是影响他人。特别值得注意的是，“影响”有多种形式。“Scholars write to influence the beliefs of fellow scholars, but ‘influence’ is itself an ambiguous idea. To influence can mean to persuade others to buy one’s book; to read one’s book; to cite one’s publications; to believe differently than before, but not necessarily what the persuader desires; to accept the writer’s arguments; and so on. (p. 212)”确实，被人家反驳也是种成绩。“It is an achievement when others think that one’s arguments are important enough to be denounced and demolished. Even to be demolished is better requires some ability to excite and especially to outrage one’s fellow professionals. (p. 213)”因此，如果对真正看不上眼的文字，最好的策略是不理睬，任其自生自灭。见到群傻子，发几句议论表示自己不是他们同类也在情理之中；而苦口婆心地教化傻子，几近于傻子。更何况有些高论是骗子所发，他们自己都不相信。当然，这不是作者的话，是我读时的感想。

Stigler观察到名家常在专业以往的领域发表意见。“…A major scholar is apparently entitled—not to say, encouraged—to take strong positions on subjects far removed from his professional experite. (p. 174)” 名家的这种非专业通俗文章，并没有同行评议，而是按媒体的标准来评价。“Instead the standards of professional journalism are imposed: They include better writing and a deep, insatiable infatuation with controversy. (p. 176)”媒体有自己的游戏规则，需要取悦目标读者群，学者也只好入乡随俗。“But these journals are conducted to please their readers, and almost invariably the readers of each popular periodical have a distinctive set of interests and preferences. …When professors enter this arena, they must dress and fight as the local gladiators do. (p. 176)”

鉴于上述考虑，Stigler认为学者发表报刊论文应该匿名。“I do not know why academicians require or deserve relative immunity when they leave their area of professional competence to write or talk on other subjects. If the boundaries of competence could be drawn clearly, there would be a good deal to say for letting professional entrepreneurs take their profits and losser like other entrepreneurs when they went outside these boundaries. Probably the best way to approach this state would be to require academic scholars to publish their nonprofessional work anonymously. That practice would serve two ends. Anonymity would deprive the work of an authority that is attached to the author’s professional status and probably should not be attached to writings outside is area of professional competence. Moreover, the employing institution would not be drawn into the naelstrom of current events. (p. 176)”

当然，Stigler也清楚他建议的匿名制有问题。学者可能不负责任地胡说。“The proposal of anonymity in publich writing assumes that scholars will ofter be irresponsible in such writing, and seeks to make the best of that situation. An alternative would be instill a code of self-sestraint that would lead scholars to deal responsibly with current issues, even when those issues are of critical concern and enlist powerful emotins and interests. I find that prospect even less practicable than anonymity. (p. 177)”此外，是否属于专长领域也不太容易判断。“No sharp line, however, can be drawn between one’s professional competence and the rest of one’s knowledge and opinion. (p. 177)”对人性认识深刻者，往往有无奈的感觉。

作为读者，我看到名家写的报刊文章，第一反应就是看讨论是否属于作者专业范围之内。我个人比较重视专家的意见，而把学无所长的所谓公共意见领袖看作娱乐界的人士，所说或许有趣但未必可信。

斯蒂格勒谈大学—读Memoirs of an Unregulated Economist札记

斯蒂格勒谈学者—读Memoirs of an Unregulated Economist札记

斯蒂格勒谈专家—读Memoirs of an Unregulated Economist札记

斯蒂格勒谈知识—读Memoirs of an Unregulated Economist札记

斯蒂格勒谈学界—读Memoirs of an Unregulated Economist札记