Thomas Sowell interview • Hacker News Board

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#321

Post by RoboticWater » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:45 PM UTC

_fq4v wrote: post #290

RoboticWater wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

> No one has put forth the argument that Sowell believes systematic racism cannot ever exist.

The comment I was responding to literally said "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." A very clear implication that systemic racism doesn't exist.

Now, this may not be Sowell's views, but fortunately for Sowell, I never mentioned him in my initial reply.

> 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.

All science is performed with biases. We couldn't possibly form a hypothesis without following our intuitions first. The question is whether our biases conform to the data. Of course, biases may also shape how we interpret data, but this is true for everyone. Sowell may be right, but let's not pretend that he, or anyone for that matter, is the only one approaching this research with a truly neutral, unbiased approach.

I think it's fair to subject research into systemic racism to scrutiny, but that's merely the process of academic review. It should never be touted as cutting through the propaganda, as if Sowell is some kind of crusader against the dogmatic PC police left.

> In fact, in his books, he openly admits that he believes that it did indeed once exist.

Now, call me crazy, but given that he believes it once existed, I find it hard to believe that he also believes that it's just over and done with now. John Lewis just died recently, and I consider it unlikely that we'd ferret out racism from our systems in just that span of time, especially when I hear stories of, for instance, a North Carolina legislature disenfranchising Black people with surgical precision as recent as 2014. If we still have that kind of explicit racism in our public institutions, it's unreasonable to think more subtle forms aren't also causing unequal outcomes.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#322

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:54 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #286

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

If you're familiar with Lakoff you'll know there's a difference in tone which is based on a difference on associated family positioning.

Conservatives tend to paternalism. Marxists are more likely to be oppositional, because Marxism and socialism are underdog discourses, and they don't have the advantage of assuming that general readers will agree - especially in the US, where the default position for most of the population is aggressive hostility towards Socialism and incandescent fury towards Marxism, without really knowing much about either.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#323

Post by jakebasile » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

djrobstep wrote: post #245

auganov wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't even say that much. It simply ridicules proponents of wealth redistribution for sometimes calling those opposed "greedy", while they themselves are being "greedy" in going after other people's money. Whether taxes are okay isn't discussed.

It's not "other people's money" in the first place, that's the point. Packed into that notion is the idea it rightfully or originally belongs to the rich. It doesn't. It rightfully belongs to the poor who need food and healthcare.

Again, there is no reference to "rich" vs "poor" in his argument. The argument is just a basic restatement of property rights - people own that which they've purchased through trading goods, services, or money. This applies just as much to any human being, except the truly indigent with no property whatsoever.

Why is it greed for someone to keep what income/wealth/property they've earned while also is not greed to claim that someone else's income/wealth/property is actually owed to another group?

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#324

Post by jakebasile » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

markharper wrote: post #102

jakebasile wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not saying only the rich earn their wages which is what you claimed he said. He's saying everyone earns the wages they work for. Claiming that something is true simply because of law is fairly short sighted. There have been and continue to be unjust laws worldwide.

Claiming that something is right because it exists as it is under the current system without further justification is equally, if not more short sighted. It's where "plainspeaking" and begging the question combine into a kind of catnip for people that want reinforcement for their impulse towards the status quo. I'm not familiar with this particular quote, but I've read one of his recent books and it was full of this…

I am not, and nor do I see the quote in question claiming that because something exists it must be right. In fact, I'm arguing against that since it is the same as saying that something being a law does not make it just.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#325

Post by chmod600 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:59 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…

It's also a common technique among teachers, because teachers are not trying to persuade skeptics. You are presenting it as some kind of manipulation, but it's really just a different audience. And it's a lot easier to read the straightforward style, and learn a lot of stuff quickly.

His conclusions are not really the most important thing about his writing, anyway. He brings forward a lot of good approaches that are an improvement over other common approaches. For instance, he avoids grouping people by a snapshot in time, and instead analyzes them over their lifetime, or even generations.

And he also just asks a lot of interesting questions and dives into the data and finds interesting results.

He's also less US-centric than many writers. Sometimes that alone is enough to advance the conversation by breaking us our of our bubble.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#326

Post by zeruch » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 6:01 PM UTC

_-david-_ wrote: post #296

UncleOxidant wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> + socialism == great loss of liberty Is it a firm rule that this always has to be the case? Do people in, say, Finland have less liberty than people in the US?

Finland is not socialist. They have social democracy.

True, but most Americans seemingly do not know how to make such a distinction. The key, but seemingly too nuanced aspects of European governments in that regard, gets distilled to "liberal/leftist/commie/pinko" states.

It's daft as hell, and quite annoying.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#327

Post by AnimalMuppet » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 6:06 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #322

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

If you're familiar with Lakoff you'll know there's a difference in tone which is based on a difference on associated family positioning. Conservatives tend to paternalism. Marxists are more likely to be oppositional, because Marxism and socialism are underdog discourses, and they don't have the advantage of assuming that general readers will agree - especially in the US, where the default position for most of the pop…

That may be true. But in response, they should write differently. If you're the underdog discourse, don't start the conversation by assuming that you're right. Worse, don't start it by assuming that the reader agrees that you're right.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#328

Post by x86_64Ubuntu » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

sbuttgereit wrote: post #146

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

So then, how does a black person adopt, of their own free will without a thought of "white belief", a conservative outlook an not run afoul of your complaint? Are you suggesting that they stay silent? How is injecting race into the political discourse at this level not in itself patently racist? Are you suggesting that only whites are allowed such free choices in their beliefs?

Why do you attach "black free will" with adhering to the black subjugation ideas of the US right-wing?

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#329

Post by x86_64Ubuntu » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

rukittenme wrote: post #153

deiznof wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but I had no idea HN people were huge fans of the guy too.

Must be hard. Hating it when the ideas of a black author are supported, admired, and shape the political leanings of a white audience.

It's not a "white audience", it's a white audience whose identity hinges on white supremacy.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#330

Post by googthrowaway42 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

jahaja wrote: post #309

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

> VP and CTO are actual titles that confer authority. Those are considered illegitimate since they are undemocratic. A top-down vanguard too. > but what would he say about parent-child relationships? The same competence argument applies to child rearing.

> Those are considered illegitimate since they are undemocratic.

But these are voluntary structures? That's kind of the beauty of the free market. You have these little monarchal structures that go out and create something in the world. If people want to join they can. If and when these structures become too dysfunctional they go away due to market forces.