Thomas Sowell interview • Hacker News Board

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#281

Post by jahaja » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #239

jahaja wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> What other forms of righteous hierarchies are you thinking about? Head surgeon and other surgeons. CTO and other engineers. VP of sales and sales people, etc. Other forms of hierarchy would be upper and lower courts. Whether or not these are righteous is dependent on if, for example, the head surgeon is actually experienced and talented and a good leader. If he's just some shmuck they pulled off the street or if he…

There seem to be some mixing of hierarchies and authority here, but even anarchists aren't as dogmatically opposed to all kinds of authority that you seem to imply?

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult the architect or the engineer For such special knowledge I apply to such a "savant." But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the "savant" to impose his authority on me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure."

Mikhail Bakunin

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#282

Post by deiznof » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:00 PM UTC

vadansky wrote: post #274

deiznof wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, as I said he literally wrote an article about it. I literally cannot understand how you can't connect Sowell's claim that anti-discrimination legislation (like CRA) is bad to my argument.

Can you post a link? I'm honestly under the suspicious you just posted a PDF you did not read, or knowingly knew did not back up your arguments but hoped no one would read the 25 pages to find out.

https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/02/09/upside-dow...

He was wrong and/or misleading about everything he said in this article. Maybe you should apply the same suspicion to someone like Sowell instead.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#283

Post by vadansky » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

deiznof wrote: post #282

vadansky wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you post a link? I'm honestly under the suspicious you just posted a PDF you did not read, or knowingly knew did not back up your arguments but hoped no one would read the 25 pages to find out.

https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/02/09/upside-dow... He was wrong and/or misleading about everything he said in this article. Maybe you should apply the same suspicion to someone like Sowell instead.

Damn, guess I was wrong. Still nothing to do with the parents argument though, you should at edit your comment to include that link so people understand what you're taking about.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#284

Post by ardy42 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

haberman wrote: post #234

ardy42 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My question: an oft repeated refrain, when Marx is touted as a reasonable alternative, is that any time anyone tried his ideas out, it was a total disaster (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez). I've not read Marx, nor am I a Marxist, but my understanding is that most of his work is a diagnosis of a problem, not a plan for a cure. IIRC, Marx's own "plan" was basically more capitalism harder until it collapses and somethin…

I don't think that analogy works: many people never get cancer which means we have a clear model for what a healthy, cancer-free life form looks like. "Curing cancer" just means returning a body to this healthy, pre-cancerous state. But we have no model for what a healthy, capitalism-free society would look like. Every attempt at removing capitalism from the system has led to totalitarian results. This doesn't prove…

> But we have no model for what a healthy, capitalism-free society would look like. Every attempt at removing capitalism from the system has led to totalitarian results.

That's not quite accurate, since capitalism hasn't always existed and markets haven't haven't always been the primary means of exchange. There's also a fairly broad range of capitalist systems with different trade offs. We also don't know if capitalism won't also ultimately lead to totalitarian results.

In these discussions, we also probably need to make a distinction between capitalism and markets. You could perhaps have a society that keeps markets more-or-less as they are but "removes capitalism" by implementing a different relationship between labor and ownership, for instance.

> This doesn't prove that capitalism is the best possible system, but it strongly suggests that alternatives are worse.

I dispute the latter point. It's kinda like saying the failure of the iAPX 432 and Itanium strongly suggests there's no better alternative to the x86 architecture. In this case, I don't think we have much understanding about what's unknown.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#285

Post by tetrometal » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:06 PM UTC

altcognito wrote: post #98

uniqueid wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not any measure that makes sense to me, and I've lived through a few decades now. I don't even think America represented such a menagerie of viewpoints in the late '60s.

That’s what I’m wondering. The internet has sharpened so many viewpoints (not in a good way) . My question is sincere and curious. There might be lots of pressure to push opinions in one direction or another but that’s not conformism, quite the opposite.

I think a lot of people are rightly sensing a shrinking of the Overton window[0]. For example, I think the following is a perfectly reasonable position to hold: "It would be a remarkable happenstance if, in a perfectly free society, men and women were found in equal proportion in every industry. Indeed, the default expectation should be that there will be variability in this regard."

Saying that in today's environment with my name attached would get me fired, so I keep my mouth shut. A perfectly reasonable position, and I cannot speak it for fear of losing the ability to care for my family.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#286

Post by AnimalMuppet » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:07 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #198

chmod600 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overall, I like his writing, but his style can also come across as dismissive; as though he is obviously right, before he has really addressed all lines of criticism. When used to explain something, this style is great, because he gets his point across efficiently and provides enough backing so that you can remember it. And if you read enough of his writing, he brings out the nuance in other books and the intellectua…

That's a standard rhetorical technique you'll see in much right-wing writing. Statements are made as if they're simply correct by definition, and there is no space for argument or dissent. Is he genuinely objective and data-driven? How many of his studies have been replicated? How many competing studies - which he fails to mention - disagree with his conclusions? It's easy to be right when you simply assert your idea…

Not just right-wing. I've seen the same approach from marxists. (Not an exaggeration or a projection - from literal marxists.) The unstated, unproven assumption is that Marx was right, and the analysis proceeds from there to make dogmatic statements about the economy and/or society. That's fine, if the readers are also convinced marxists. But if someone else reads it, they very quickly think "Wait a minute, I don't agree with your premise, and you did nothing to convince me. Why should I believe your conclusions?"

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#287

Post by deadgunslinger » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

RoboticWater wrote: post #130

tlear wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is immeasurable, undefinable, unchangeable. As a propagandist you must take care to use things that can not be countered. Systemic racism is one of those. What is the systemic racism measure for Canada vs US? That is his point, you can use that stick to beat anyone and anything you want without having to supply a shred of evidence. Just keep repeating it and call everyone who disagrees racist or Uncle Tom.

If it were immeasurable and undefinable, then we wouldn't have studies showing disproportionate sentencing of Black people [1] or the persistent negative effects of redlining [2]. And if it were unchangeable, we wouldn't be able to construct studies to show the specific choke-points of racial inequality, nor suggest policy solutions to remedy them. > What is the systemic racism measure for Canada vs US? I don't under…

> If it were immeasurable and undefinable, then we wouldn't have studies showing disproportionate sentencing of Black people

By the same standard, do you agree that there is systemic sexism against men?

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#288

Post by jimbokun » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:10 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.

Yes, "cancel culture" exists on both the Left and the Right.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#289

Post by googthrowaway42 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:11 PM UTC

jahaja wrote: post #281

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What other forms of righteous hierarchies are you thinking about? Head surgeon and other surgeons. CTO and other engineers. VP of sales and sales people, etc. Other forms of hierarchy would be upper and lower courts. Whether or not these are righteous is dependent on if, for example, the head surgeon is actually experienced and talented and a good leader. If he's just some shmuck they pulled off the street or if he…

There seem to be some mixing of hierarchies and authority here, but even anarchists aren't as dogmatically opposed to all kinds of authority that you seem to imply? "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult the architect or the engineer For such special knowledge I apply to such…

I was talking about Marxism and other revolutionary movements that spring from the French Revolution.

VP and CTO are actual titles that confer authority. What Bakunin is describing are hierarchies of competence in a particular art (techne) but what would he say about parent-child relationships?

I had never heard of Bakunin until now. I'm not an expert on the schools of anarchist thought by any measure so I won't pretend to really be able to hold a discussion you want to get into analysis of various schools of anarchist thought.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#290

Post by _fq4v » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:14 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…

Sowell believes that systemic racism doesn't exist because he has examined the various research and finds issues with all of them -- namely that the various discrepancies they find can be explained in other ways.

He never claimed that systemic racism could not exist. In fact, in his books, he openly admits that he believes that it did indeed once exist. He just questions whether the studies being produced today are done so without pre-existing bias (are they looking for data to back up their belief, or vice versa) and whether the data produced evidentiates the conclusion. If indeed the studies you cite and that he refutes are looking for data to back up their pre-existing conclusion, then propaganda is the correct description.

No one has put forth the argument that Sowell believes systematic racism cannot ever exist. All that has been said is that he questions whether it currently exists today and the conclusions of the studies you cite.