This is a good post about the difference between the best sort of economists' thinking-out-loud, and politicians or journalists.
Does politics and journalism have to be like this though? Is there a way that both could be structured so that groupthink is chastised and tribalism is punished? Is there a way that it could become more conversational? Where apostacy is less of a sin and where lightly held - almost playful - views can be traded?
Surely a Parliament with hundreds of members reflecting diverse and creative thinking of the kind that Chris is asking for here would result in a very high quality of policy-making? The kind of 'distributed moral wisdom' that Prof McWalter mentioned (quite a while ago now.....)
What would need to change?