In our discussion of intellectuals, I mentioned ego as a factor in their unwillingness to seriously engage opposing visions. However, this is not all purely personal ego.It can also be ego on behalf of the intellectual class as a whole. As Schumpeter said of John Stuart Mill: "Mill, however modest on his own behalf, was not at all modest on behalf of his time. 'This enlightened age' had solved all problems. And if you knew what its 'best thinkers' thought, you were in a position to answer all questions.
I do not mean to repeat what I have previously said on Mill's attitude of speaking from the vantage ground of definitively established truth. But I mean to add that this attitude, besides being ridiculous, made for sterility and--yes-- superficiality. There is too little attention to groundwork. There is too little thinking things through and much too much confidence that most of the necessary thinking has been done already."
There is a chapter on John Stuart Mill in my book titled "On Classical Economics," which gives a couple of examples of this tendency, as well as a critique of "On Liberty." I refrained from expressing an opinion about his relationship with Harriet Taylor, while she was married to her first husband, before marrying Mill after his death. Hayek seems to have considered their relationship during her first marriage not to have included sex. However, I recall one of her letters to Mill, while he was writing "Principles of Political Economy," I believe, when he used to visit her on weekends in her country retreat. In that letter she said, "I yearn unspeakably for Saturday." Now, I like economics as well as the next guy, but I cannot say that I ever yearned unspeakably for it.