Sowell's lectures on race, inequality, and knowledge leave a lot to be desired. Instead of illuminating reality on these topics, Sowell wages battle against unnamed "social justice" adversaries.
With any book written for public consumption, most of the arguments are simplifications in one way or another, but I think the alternatives to Sowell's arguments are probably more misleading simplifications. Sowell at least gets at something that is actually true - market mechanisms work better than alternatives, delivering on innovation and growth (growth enables human cooperation, which is otherwise a tenuous proposition). Diatribes about the problems of inequality or poverty that plead for mitigation offer little in the way of bonafide solutions (it isn't like many things haven't been tried). Part of the reason for this is that the contra-Sowell position often misunderstands the nature of "structural inequality" and stickiness of the past (btw Phil Tetlock's work has shown there is little-to-no test-retest validity nor explanatory power in IAT so I'm setting that aside).
For a little bit about the potent forces of inequality, I recommend checking out Greg Clark's work on social mobility. Essentially, social mobility is an almost fixed constant across in human societies (his observation travels to other societies surprisingly well), and relative patterns of stratification are remarkably durable for reasons that are probably hard to modify (see --> https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2300926120).
"I hold a PhD in molecular medicine with a background in genomics and neuroscience. Science and literature fascinate me. Generally, I have maddeningly broad interests, and I'd like to work through them and refine them here."
That sounds pretty sharp -- and strikes me as someone astute enough to allow one conversation to evolve into another (and can correlate how they connect). I couldn't get a PhD in that subject matter to save my life. I'll tell what I can do though (and did): Interview a world-renowned nuclear scientist on a matter of mathematical certainty -- that was manipulated to sell the biggest & most costly lie in modern history (which shaped everything you see today).
In addition, I corresponded with Colin Powell’s chief of intelligence at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) — and also corresponded with a key physicist (who wrote extensively on the subject matter).
After all his posturing about "following facts where they lead" -- Thomas Sowell didn't go anywhere near 'em on that issue of world-altering consequence (opting to peddle partisan hackery that poisons political discourse and butchers debate to this day). On top flagrantly ignoring irrefutable evidence of mathematical certainty, he has a habit of toeing the party line: All of which flies in the face of the principles upon which he’s put on a pedestal.
Sowell once wrote, "As a distinguished scholar once said: 'The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.'" That's exactly what he did -- and in so doing, is lauded for calling out problems he helped create. As I wrote on my site:
I wouldn’t care if Sowell cured cancer: You don’t get a pass for basking in baseless beliefs that cripple the country — and have the bottomless nerve to preach responsibility & accountability to boot. That — is a cancer of its own. The poison he pumped into the atmosphere helped destroy the internal organs of America. So we have very different standards as to what qualifies as a "National Treasure."
I’m not out to “DESTROY” Sowell -- quite the contrary! That his supporters instantly sling such assumptions (coupled with rapid-fire ridicule for satisfaction in full) — is in gross breach of the standards he espouses. Sowell is simply a conduit through which to tell a larger story about the decline of America from decades of delight in the Gutter Games of Government (and what we can do about that with the out-of-the-box idea I have in mind).
I'm looking for fiercely independent thinkers who want to solve problems — not endlessly talk about them. I use "fiercely" for the same reason you used "maddeningly." Everyone thinks they're independent thinkers -- but only an infinitesimal fraction actually are. "Fiercely" sets the bar so much higher (just as "maddeningly" does before "broad interests")
But very people deliver on their claims. I'm only interested in meaningful conversation with a purpose. I expect your thinking to reflect the level of intelligence it took to get that PhD -- along with the spirit behind "maddeningly broad interests." But if you're not interested in hearing me out (which takes time and effort to understand the story in full) -- then there's no point in replying at all.
Apologies, but from your comment, it remains unclear what exactly you'd like to communicate. I'm not sure if it is germane to the original post here or my comment either.
Your primary complaint appears to be that Sowell is a partisan hack. Sowell is obviously a partisan. This isn't in dispute. Many public intellectuals have also been vocal partisans.
Sowell has been primarily a communicator of ideas and an explainer of the research of others over his career rather than an active scholar (he is currently 93). In reality though, it is quite rare to be a scholar that contributes originally and substantially to any field (and I mean rare among academics not just among the population at-large). His credentials, erudition, and rigor are perfectly acceptable in the discourse of the educated public. His books are professional and serious. They are cited broadly by many other scholars of both the Right and Left, including Pinker who you mentioned above. They aren't perfect, but nothing is.
So it's certainly plausible to construct an argument that Sowell is more partisan pundit than scholar, but there are many worse cases. Why focus our ire on Sowell in particular? It's pretty farfetched to identify him as some particularly notable locus for the degradation of discourse. His contributions seem to be found valuable by those of many different ideological stripes despite his clear preferences for right-of-center ideas.
“Shallow thinkers do not think beyond the immediate and the observable. They usually take information at face value and only look at immediate consequences. They are not capable of looking at all sides of an issue or think deeply about the issue before making decisions or drawing conclusions . . . . They also believe that their opinion is based on deep thinking because they genuinely believe that their opinion is based on truth and facts. Whereas, deep thinkers look at the whole sequence of events and the consequences.”
Thank you for a breakdown of Sowell's recent book. Very helpful when to have all the citations and quotes.
I've read other works by Thomas and watched a number of interviews. He's a thoughtful, intelligent person and put in long work. However as you've noted, his cherry picking and omission of information is there to suit the narrative and this persona he created; that is a Black Conservative Capitalist Contrarian. It makes him unique in a sea of white conservatives and gives him special status in that group.
It's unfortunate his almost dogmatic adherence to conservative, capitalists ideologies has lead him down this path. I think he could have benefited society as a whole to a much greater extent had he been more flexible in his analysis of societal economic structures.
I loved it. But I am biased. I've following Sowell's work for close to fifty years.
I ran across this review while researching something else. I wasn't surprised at all.
Sowell has named what you call his unnamed 'social justice' adversaries at least since the early sixties. He often uses the term intelligentsia. Clearly, he doesn't think they-- liberal intellectuals-- have the kinds of intellectual goods to solve the problem... because no one does. This must be done by blacks or any other marginalized human beings without the kind of help you wish to provide.
Self-improvement means exactly what it says and who it has to do it.
It takes about a second of societal observation, for any reasonably intelligent person, to see that Sowell is right. The liberal intelligentsia may have had good intentions, but they've seriously harmed those they were championing while they have enriched themselves. For the intelligentsia, race is big business. Is it ever about solving something? Or is it the ongoing 'fight' that must be sustained? Who has benefitted?
And now we see the remedy for all that previous harm, has been reduced to a massive lowering of standards. Just how low are willing to lower standards to prove that all of you are right? That will only help the intelligentsia graduate more people with a higher level of ignorance. So, it will do even more of the same harm.
Moynihan predicted all of this. The entire disaster. And he was almost immediately removed from the intelligentsia for publishing his thoughts. Basically, to shut him up so welfare could proceed. And here we are. Welfare has been a way of life for generations. A grand disaster that needs to be undone.
I'll buy Sowell's thinking on this. He's earned it.
I wonder, too, what all those poor government-dependent people of all races, genders, and ethnicities, will do when the dollar finally fails. All of this has been 'lost time' to develop even basic survival skills needed amongst individuals to be self-supportive. We're generations late in taking the good advice offered by Sowell and many others.
Don't worry, we'll keep doing what been doing until the dollar collapses-- probably already too late to stop that eventuality, anyway. Reminds me of that old street definition of insanity that we all used to use.
“Shallow thinkers do not think beyond the immediate and the observable. They usually take information at face value and only look at immediate consequences. They are not capable of looking at all sides of an issue or think deeply about the issue before making decisions or drawing conclusions . . . . They also believe that their opinion is based on deep thinking because they genuinely believe that their opinion is based on truth and facts. Whereas, deep thinkers look at the whole sequence of events and the consequences.”
Thanks for the detailed review.
With any book written for public consumption, most of the arguments are simplifications in one way or another, but I think the alternatives to Sowell's arguments are probably more misleading simplifications. Sowell at least gets at something that is actually true - market mechanisms work better than alternatives, delivering on innovation and growth (growth enables human cooperation, which is otherwise a tenuous proposition). Diatribes about the problems of inequality or poverty that plead for mitigation offer little in the way of bonafide solutions (it isn't like many things haven't been tried). Part of the reason for this is that the contra-Sowell position often misunderstands the nature of "structural inequality" and stickiness of the past (btw Phil Tetlock's work has shown there is little-to-no test-retest validity nor explanatory power in IAT so I'm setting that aside).
For a little bit about the potent forces of inequality, I recommend checking out Greg Clark's work on social mobility. Essentially, social mobility is an almost fixed constant across in human societies (his observation travels to other societies surprisingly well), and relative patterns of stratification are remarkably durable for reasons that are probably hard to modify (see --> https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2300926120).
"I hold a PhD in molecular medicine with a background in genomics and neuroscience. Science and literature fascinate me. Generally, I have maddeningly broad interests, and I'd like to work through them and refine them here."
That sounds pretty sharp -- and strikes me as someone astute enough to allow one conversation to evolve into another (and can correlate how they connect). I couldn't get a PhD in that subject matter to save my life. I'll tell what I can do though (and did): Interview a world-renowned nuclear scientist on a matter of mathematical certainty -- that was manipulated to sell the biggest & most costly lie in modern history (which shaped everything you see today).
In addition, I corresponded with Colin Powell’s chief of intelligence at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) — and also corresponded with a key physicist (who wrote extensively on the subject matter).
After all his posturing about "following facts where they lead" -- Thomas Sowell didn't go anywhere near 'em on that issue of world-altering consequence (opting to peddle partisan hackery that poisons political discourse and butchers debate to this day). On top flagrantly ignoring irrefutable evidence of mathematical certainty, he has a habit of toeing the party line: All of which flies in the face of the principles upon which he’s put on a pedestal.
Sowell once wrote, "As a distinguished scholar once said: 'The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.'" That's exactly what he did -- and in so doing, is lauded for calling out problems he helped create. As I wrote on my site:
I wouldn’t care if Sowell cured cancer: You don’t get a pass for basking in baseless beliefs that cripple the country — and have the bottomless nerve to preach responsibility & accountability to boot. That — is a cancer of its own. The poison he pumped into the atmosphere helped destroy the internal organs of America. So we have very different standards as to what qualifies as a "National Treasure."
I’m not out to “DESTROY” Sowell -- quite the contrary! That his supporters instantly sling such assumptions (coupled with rapid-fire ridicule for satisfaction in full) — is in gross breach of the standards he espouses. Sowell is simply a conduit through which to tell a larger story about the decline of America from decades of delight in the Gutter Games of Government (and what we can do about that with the out-of-the-box idea I have in mind).
I'm looking for fiercely independent thinkers who want to solve problems — not endlessly talk about them. I use "fiercely" for the same reason you used "maddeningly." Everyone thinks they're independent thinkers -- but only an infinitesimal fraction actually are. "Fiercely" sets the bar so much higher (just as "maddeningly" does before "broad interests")
But very people deliver on their claims. I'm only interested in meaningful conversation with a purpose. I expect your thinking to reflect the level of intelligence it took to get that PhD -- along with the spirit behind "maddeningly broad interests." But if you're not interested in hearing me out (which takes time and effort to understand the story in full) -- then there's no point in replying at all.
If you're wondering what prompted these "pre-conditions" -- this is one slice of it: “Substack Is a Scam in the Same Way That All Media Is”: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/12/02/substack-is-a-scam-in-the-same-way-that-all-media-is/
As for an intro to the story on Sowell . . .
Let me tell you something about how the mind works, Mr. Pinker:
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2022/08/25/let-me-tell-you-something-about-how-the-mind-works-mr-pinker/
Thanks for your time!
Hi Richard,
Apologies, but from your comment, it remains unclear what exactly you'd like to communicate. I'm not sure if it is germane to the original post here or my comment either.
Your primary complaint appears to be that Sowell is a partisan hack. Sowell is obviously a partisan. This isn't in dispute. Many public intellectuals have also been vocal partisans.
Sowell has been primarily a communicator of ideas and an explainer of the research of others over his career rather than an active scholar (he is currently 93). In reality though, it is quite rare to be a scholar that contributes originally and substantially to any field (and I mean rare among academics not just among the population at-large). His credentials, erudition, and rigor are perfectly acceptable in the discourse of the educated public. His books are professional and serious. They are cited broadly by many other scholars of both the Right and Left, including Pinker who you mentioned above. They aren't perfect, but nothing is.
So it's certainly plausible to construct an argument that Sowell is more partisan pundit than scholar, but there are many worse cases. Why focus our ire on Sowell in particular? It's pretty farfetched to identify him as some particularly notable locus for the degradation of discourse. His contributions seem to be found valuable by those of many different ideological stripes despite his clear preferences for right-of-center ideas.
Thanks for the material:
America Argues in a Vacuum Incapable of Correlating Anything: As if Blowback Has No Bearing on 9/11 & Today. With the issues I address — you might as well be saying the Civil War wasn’t germane to the assassination of Lincoln: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/12/05/america-argues-in-a-vacuum-incapable-of-correlating-anything-as-if-blowback-has-no-bearing-on-9-11-today/
“Shallow thinkers do not think beyond the immediate and the observable. They usually take information at face value and only look at immediate consequences. They are not capable of looking at all sides of an issue or think deeply about the issue before making decisions or drawing conclusions . . . . They also believe that their opinion is based on deep thinking because they genuinely believe that their opinion is based on truth and facts. Whereas, deep thinkers look at the whole sequence of events and the consequences.”
You had 60 seconds to show me you were worth my time. Time's up. Good day.
Thank you for a breakdown of Sowell's recent book. Very helpful when to have all the citations and quotes.
I've read other works by Thomas and watched a number of interviews. He's a thoughtful, intelligent person and put in long work. However as you've noted, his cherry picking and omission of information is there to suit the narrative and this persona he created; that is a Black Conservative Capitalist Contrarian. It makes him unique in a sea of white conservatives and gives him special status in that group.
It's unfortunate his almost dogmatic adherence to conservative, capitalists ideologies has lead him down this path. I think he could have benefited society as a whole to a much greater extent had he been more flexible in his analysis of societal economic structures.
I just finished the referenced book.
I loved it. But I am biased. I've following Sowell's work for close to fifty years.
I ran across this review while researching something else. I wasn't surprised at all.
Sowell has named what you call his unnamed 'social justice' adversaries at least since the early sixties. He often uses the term intelligentsia. Clearly, he doesn't think they-- liberal intellectuals-- have the kinds of intellectual goods to solve the problem... because no one does. This must be done by blacks or any other marginalized human beings without the kind of help you wish to provide.
Self-improvement means exactly what it says and who it has to do it.
It takes about a second of societal observation, for any reasonably intelligent person, to see that Sowell is right. The liberal intelligentsia may have had good intentions, but they've seriously harmed those they were championing while they have enriched themselves. For the intelligentsia, race is big business. Is it ever about solving something? Or is it the ongoing 'fight' that must be sustained? Who has benefitted?
And now we see the remedy for all that previous harm, has been reduced to a massive lowering of standards. Just how low are willing to lower standards to prove that all of you are right? That will only help the intelligentsia graduate more people with a higher level of ignorance. So, it will do even more of the same harm.
Moynihan predicted all of this. The entire disaster. And he was almost immediately removed from the intelligentsia for publishing his thoughts. Basically, to shut him up so welfare could proceed. And here we are. Welfare has been a way of life for generations. A grand disaster that needs to be undone.
I'll buy Sowell's thinking on this. He's earned it.
I wonder, too, what all those poor government-dependent people of all races, genders, and ethnicities, will do when the dollar finally fails. All of this has been 'lost time' to develop even basic survival skills needed amongst individuals to be self-supportive. We're generations late in taking the good advice offered by Sowell and many others.
Don't worry, we'll keep doing what been doing until the dollar collapses-- probably already too late to stop that eventuality, anyway. Reminds me of that old street definition of insanity that we all used to use.
The other guy was a waste of time. How about you?
America Argues in a Vacuum Incapable of Correlating Anything: As if Blowback Has No Bearing on 9/11 & Today. With the issues I address — you might as well be saying the Civil War wasn’t germane to the assassination of Lincoln: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/12/05/america-argues-in-a-vacuum-incapable-of-correlating-anything-as-if-blowback-has-no-bearing-on-9-11-today/
“Shallow thinkers do not think beyond the immediate and the observable. They usually take information at face value and only look at immediate consequences. They are not capable of looking at all sides of an issue or think deeply about the issue before making decisions or drawing conclusions . . . . They also believe that their opinion is based on deep thinking because they genuinely believe that their opinion is based on truth and facts. Whereas, deep thinkers look at the whole sequence of events and the consequences.”