Thomas Sowell interview • Hacker News Board

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#221

Post by tshaddox » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:03 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #168

sradman wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He does take a conservative approach to a lot of topics... Sowell's book A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles [1] is, ironically, a very good starting point in understanding what makes Sowell "conservative" (the Constrained Vision) vs "progressive" (the Unconstrained Vision). I think this is the work that impressed Steven Pinker. The categories get really messy, for example when he desc…

> If you ask a liberal or a saltwater economist, “What would somebody on the other side of this divide say here? What would their version of it be?” A liberal can do that. A liberal can talk coherently about what the conservative view is because people like me actually do listen. We don’t think it’s right, but we pay enough attention to see what the other person is trying to get at. The reverse is not true. You try t…

> many conservatives were once liberals, while the reverse is typically not true.

Is there any data to support that claim? It’s the opposite of my own personal anecdata.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#222

Post by vadansky » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:04 PM UTC

deiznof wrote: post #201

tathougies wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it comes to redlining, sowell directly addresses it in in Vision of the Anointed. He points out that the kinds of houses blacks tend to purchase tends to be ignored in studies that find widespread discrimination. For example blacks are much more likely to want to buy multi family homes. The income and other requirements for these are much stricter which is why they are denied loans more often. Moreover, he point…

>He then shows data that the anti discrimination legislation increased black default rates and questions whether you encouraging minorities to declare bankruptcy and enter financial ruin is really something to be desired. Sowell talked about the CRA and was proven wrong by multiple studies, like this one, which has a section dedicated to how the CRA wasn't a problem: https://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lendin…

This seems more to say that the 2008 housing crisis was not caused by the CRA, which no one said it did.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#223

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:06 PM UTC

tengbretson wrote: post #192

SantalBlush wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specifically is he right about? Why do we require evidence when someone says he is wrong, but we do not require evidence for the numerous times in this thread where people say his book is “required reading”? First, everyone here who likes Sowell can put forth specific, concrete examples where he is right, instead of making vague statements about how brilliant he is and then demanding evidence only when someone d…

> First, everyone here who likes Sowell can put forth specific, concrete examples where he is right, instead of making vague statements about how brilliant he is and then demanding evidence only when someone disagrees. Why? The positive argument already exists. It's Sowell's writing. What are you asking for a cliff's notes? The disagreement you're talking about must obviously stem from something in the source materia…

I'm asking for concrete evidence that his opinions have predictive power which has been assessed independently.

If no such evidence exists then all we have is just-so story-telling, which can be discounted.

The fact that a lot of people seem to believe his ideas are convincing is irrelevant to this discussion.

People believe all kinds of things because they sound plausible to them - partly because other people have made careers out of working out how to push people's "This sounds plausible so I shall believe it" buttons.

Which is why reproducible evidence and independent peer review are things. And why it's absolutely reasonable - in fact required - to question assertions that can't be grounded in them.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#224

Post by tshaddox » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:07 PM UTC

deiznof wrote: post #17

His economics are sound, but I often find that his takes on social issues are extremely reductionist. His social views a lot of the time are just standard conservative views (and wrong IMO), I wish he wasn't being praised for that. One example being his view on systemic racism, which he described as: “It does remind me of the propaganda tactics of Joseph Goebbels in the age of the Nazis, in which he was supposed to h…

It’s really remarkable for one’s takeaway from the Nazis to be that accusations of racism might be false.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#225

Post by pas » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #11

ekianjo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic Economics is must read book - and he keeps improving on it. He releases new editions every few years with more recent examples of principles at work. He never stops working on it.

Basic Economics is required reading for anyone who wants to claim they understand economic principles. Even if you are a hard-left Marxist you must understand classical economic theories in order to feel comfortable debating them and more firm in your own beliefs.

The problem with Sowell's book (and thinking) is that it's outdate, not that it's wrong.

Sure, many people find their confirmation bias reinforced by it ... but otherwise there are more useful books to really learn about economics: https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/reading#wiki_general...

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#226

Post by s4n1ty » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

RoboticWater wrote: post #172

tathougies wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it comes to redlining, sowell directly addresses it in in Vision of the Anointed. He points out that the kinds of houses blacks tend to purchase tends to be ignored in studies that find widespread discrimination. For example blacks are much more likely to want to buy multi family homes. The income and other requirements for these are much stricter which is why they are denied loans more often. Moreover, he point…

I'm not debating Sowell—I don't have the background to dispute his claims, I'm arguing against the notion that systemic racism is "immeasurable, undefinable, unchangeable" and is thus propaganda. Researchers might be wrong about their findings, like in any field, but you can't just handwave the research as dogma. If Sowell is responding to specific claims made by researchers of systemic racism, then it can't possibly…

The problem with systemic racism is that nobody seems able to point to actual examples of it in the US in 2020.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#227

Post by philwelch » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

deiznof wrote: post #17

His economics are sound, but I often find that his takes on social issues are extremely reductionist. His social views a lot of the time are just standard conservative views (and wrong IMO), I wish he wasn't being praised for that. One example being his view on systemic racism, which he described as: “It does remind me of the propaganda tactics of Joseph Goebbels in the age of the Nazis, in which he was supposed to h…

Sowell has some well-thought-out views on these issues, and he’s been expressing many of them for decades, but he has a curmudgeonly side as well. And I think if you understand his more well-thought-out views on these issues, I think you’ll also at least understand his curmudgeonly attitude.

Oddly enough, what you’re doing now—if it were done to dismiss the thoughts of a “progressive” black person—would probably be characterized as “tone policing”, and to whatever extent that’s a legitimate concept I think it applies to someone who makes his fair share of curmudgeonly remarks in the context of many decades of otherwise thoughtful and reasoned argument.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#228

Post by baryphonic » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

cma wrote: post #74

pjc50 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "Cancel culture" here and what specifically do you think might apply to Sowell?

Be charitable, he could be talking about the Dixie Chicks or anchors that were fired for questioning the Iraq war. Or for the biggest example of modern cancel culture, Kaepernick's firing after targeting by the president.

> Or for the biggest example of modern cancel culture, Kaepernick's firing after targeting by the president.

Kaepernick was "fired" because he was poor at his job. Defenses started to understand his 1-dimensional attack and then shut it down. He was cut after the 2016 season, but had been benched in 2015 because the 49ers offense was struggling.[1] This was nine months before he ever took a knee before a game.[2] Did the 49ers look into a crystal ball and decide to bench him in favor of a demonstrably mediocre quarterback because of something that wouldn't happen for nine months? If he didn't show actual improvement on the field, were the 49ers obligated to keep him? Is an employer obligated to keep any employee who says something controversial regardless of performance?

> Be charitable, he could be talking about the Dixie Chicks or anchors that were fired for questioning the Iraq war.

Which anchors lost their jobs for questioning Iraq? Dan Rather stepped down for his role in publishing a hoax memo about George W. Bush's National Guard duty.[3] Brian Williams was quasi-fired for embellishing a story about his time as an embedded journalist in Iraq.[4]

The Dixie Chicks were actually blacklisted by country music radio stations, so we'll give you that one.

Still, .333 isn't great unless you're playing baseball.

[1] https://www.nfl.com/news/niners-bench-colin-kaepernick-blain...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/06/01/colin-kaepe...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/business/media/analysis-p...

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/brian-william...

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#229

Post by jahaja » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:10 PM UTC

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #43

jahaja wrote: post #27

MLK was non-conformist. Aligning oneself with the hegemonic theories of the wealthy and powerful however, is not.

There are righteous forms of hierarchy and tyrannical forms of hierarchy. What your argument boils down to is an attack on hierarchy qua hierarchy. Very common to see these days as it is a classic revolutionary/Marxist ideal but it's also entirely inconsistent with natural law. Even within the revolutionary ideal, every revolution has its leaders and its strongmen because that's just how people organize themselves an…

> it's also entirely inconsistent with natural law

You're equating your subjective ideas with natural law? Seem a bit over-confident to say the least.

> There are righteous forms of hierarchy

Yes, a parent towards a their child. What other forms of righteous hierarchies are you thinking about?

> think Lenin and Stalin vs the starving masses

That would be the tyrannical form and completely illegitimate.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#230

Post by jahaja » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:10 PM UTC

collyw wrote: post #47

jahaja wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I have seen interviews where Sowell discusses how he started out as a Marxist, but when he started looking at evidence that's what changed him. Is it fair to say that he doesn't understand left-wing ideology?

I quoted the poster, not Sowell.