Thomas Sowell: Intellectuals and Society

There are some raucus debates between Dr. Sowell and government officials, where he confronts them and makes them feel accountable for the results, rather than their intentions of their "do good" policies, whether they be in education or social welfare programs. Check them out on Youtube. Dr. Sowell is a passionate activist. I was surprised by the assertiveness with which he went after intellectuals and others - right to their faces.

Incorrect,

Now that you mention it, Robinson does seem lenient with his questions.
Anyway,I hope some day Sowell, and others thinkers from different perspectives could sit down and express their ideas in a more challenging way. Not so much to prove WHO is right but WHAT is right. No easy task, I'm sure, but unless our political parties begin to look at our many problems in a more profound way, our future will not be good.

Ever since China and India have grown with Capitalism, it unleashed economic forces that I belive the US could not have forseen. Our manufacturing based is practically non-exsistent and I believe this was a mistake. We need jobs but how can you if all is made in China and India? Sowell points out about "consequential knowledge". It seems our political leaders and wall street still have much to learn.

Hi Mark,

I sincerely appreciate our dialogue. No doubt, we see things differently but it’s important I find the truth no matter how I may feel of the outcome. At first I did not want to hear what Sowell had to say but your comments had me thinking and I’m glad I listened at the entire talk. I plan to get his book "A Conflicts of Visions" as you mentioned.
No doubt, Sowell has made valid points about the intelligentsia. I’m reminded of Linda Reibel's article "Self-Sealing Doctrines, the Misuse of Power, and Recovered Memory" (it’s online)
Says she,
"When theory becomes ideology, it is no longer safe to question or express doubts about its tenets. One powerful defensive strategy that is often applied to protect a theory against disconfirmation is the self-sealing doctrine. The self-sealing doctrine has been employed by cranks, frauds, scholars, and theoreticians. It consists of arming one's belief system with one or more tenets that explain away inconvenient evidence"
I fell into this not long ago.
I remember having a heated argument with a friend Jay, a Conservative, who told me that my liberal perspectives -no matter how benevolent- was impossible; that trying to change things for the better was a self created utopia. At first I thought it was a complement to my idealism but later I got pissed off. Here I was expressing my sincere solutions on the ills of society and he tells me I’m wrong. It was not until I looked up the word “utopia” and its many interpretations, I realized much to my chagrin that Jay was right. I’ve had arguments on the same matter before with others but I was not aware of my own unconscious arrogance until Jay said utopia.

It seems that any intellectual, theologian, scientists, teacher and politician is vulnerable in falling into this proclivity in assuming they know better about the world. They turn their knowledge into an ideology and I’m certainly no exception.
So now, with more reason that ever, I need to be more mindful of my own way of thinking. I mentioned humility previously, well, I’m humble, but apparently it’s not enough. Lol!!

Thanks Mark for sharing your thoughts.
George

I thought this might be an interesting challenge to the idea of 'intellectualism,' but Sowell's argument is feeble in every way, and internally inconsistent. He appears out of his depth and half-asleep when presented with smart questions by Robinson (that is, when Robinson isn't falling over himself to make Sowell's argument for him). I wouldn't bother watching this, honestly.

Outside of the general point that we should be skeptical of intellectual authority figures, this piece is a love letter to conservative ideology. Listen to the examples: everyone held up as right-thinking is Republican, conservative, pro-free market. Everyone used as an example of the intellectual agenda: Democrat, liberal, Keynesian (pro-economic regulation). 100% clean divide. Wherever your politics lie, this should be an unequivocal indicator of how these arguments were formulated. Just because he bring up the points of bias and selective quotation, does not mean that he doesn't use them almost exclusively.

There are so many insipid, straw man arguments in this piece that it would be a waste of time to detail Sowell's faulty logic in-depth. 'Intellectual' is used freely as a synonym for liberal: Intellectuals supported WWI, but were against the arms race, Vietnam and Iraq. Intellectuals failed to see the brutality of Stalin's regime (there's a subtle yet groundless link made between all intellectuals and Marxism here). Intellectuals flatter themselves and make rationalizations that they're correct (but of course his examples, and Sewall himself, would never make such mistakes).

Gun control doesn't work because there are more burglaries in England, nevermind the fact that murder and shooting rates are many times lower. Income distribution statistics are irrelevant because you're paid more when you're 40 than when you're 20, and some poor people were able to become rich despite the "rich getting richer." The rise in college education is alarming, because it makes people MORE subject to propaganda. The "right to botox" is no less arbitrary than the right to housing or health care.

This man presents himself as an academic who operates in the real world because he used to work at AT&T, yet has no ability to apply his theories to his own ideas of what is right. He casually mentions free markets throughout as a kind of absolute, natural state, failing to say that it is an economic product of such intellectuals (by his own definition) as Milton Friedman, and failing utterly to address that our current financial crisis is a direct, measurable result of banks given free reign to play in unregulated markets. Examining any number of conservative, free-market situations over the last century with his own criteria would yield even better examples.


He says that we shouldn't rely on experts, and yet criticizes Noam Chomsky for speaking on a subject he isn't expert in. Whatever you think of Chomsky, Sowell is saying that you have to be an expert to be worth listening to. And therein is what Sowell is really saying: people who disagree with his ideology belong to some kind of separate class of faulty thinker, while people and ideas he supports are free of agenda and bias. In this way he doesn't feel the need to prove that his many ideas about politics and economics are correct, but can simply say that his opponents are biased and grabbing for power because they're intellectual. An utter joke.

Dr Sowell makes his points well.

Gnosisman,

We don't have a lack of medical insurance, do we? We have the government intervening in the market of medical insurance, which has made it more expensive, inefficient and harder to get at the best price. For example, my wife and I are beyond our child bearing years, yet by state and federal mandate, prenatal care is included in our policy. How about getting government out and create a system where we select the coverage we want and pay only for that coverage. I do not smoke, drink alcohol or take illegal drugs, therefore, the government mandated smoking cessation, drug treatment or alcoholism treatment I pay for in my policy are a waste of resources. If those were not mandated, perhaps I could afford a health club memership, more fresh foods or even a nice pair of running shoes? My children are grown and out of the house. Why do I pay for pediatric care in my policy?

When I see the government getting involved in areas for which they have no Constitutionally enumerated powers, I get concerned. Once an issue gets politicized, it is doomed to waste our precious resources. What expertise do members of congress have with medical insurance? Who really wrote these bills? Dr. Sowell names the people who wrote them, or were relied upon to write them, or approve them. It seems to me very confusing that those on the left who decry the influence of "corporations" in the writing of legislation, insist on this "health care reform" which is a direct by product of that influence. I get less concerned when I see them sending more troops to win in Afghanistan, because defending the country is an enumerated power. I do not like military or any interventions of any kind in other areas where we have no national interest however, and I oppose these 100%.

I like the enumerated powers and the bill of rights. They were designed to preserve individual liberty and to keep the Federal Government out of areas they have no right to be in. No one man or group of men can manage our culture or economy. They are, as all governmental attempts throughout history have been, inadequate to the task of creating a utopia or anything close. The damage done and lives lost in this persuit are well documented. I prefer the implied voluntary cooperation of the free market to government coercion and politicization. The free market is not perfect, but I prefer it to being told how to live my life - in economic, moral, intellectual or other terms.

Are "corporations" greedy? "Corporations" are a fiction. It is a name given to a group of people who have pooled their money (stock purchases) to sell a good or service, as well as the people they have hired to manage those resources, to grow the business and to earn profits. Humans are greedy, without a doubt. Even the Father of the free market, Adam Smith had huge concerns about business people haveing undue influence in legislation in the economy. The answer isn't more government involvement, because as this "Health Reform" effort has shown us, politicians are greedy and corrupt as well - they are human (Senators Nelson and Landrieu come to mind). I say, let people be greedy, but let them lose when their business fail. Governments giving advantages to one side or the other is not competition. Most importantly, leave me alone to be a free man, with all of the pitfalls, dangers, risks, successes and joys that are possible.

Hi Mark,

I appreciate your comments.

(phippsed, I did listen to his entire talk as Mark suggested and I'm glad I did)

You mentioned that Dr. Sowell understands clearly that there is more to human nature than what he or any expert in the field can fathom. Well, I just wish he would make its presence felt in his book and his talks in a more profound way by acknowledging directly, for instance, that he too is at the mercy of his own intellect, his own human propensity to see things incorrectly. As they say, humility goes a long way.

It seems to me that in order to understand human nature, we need to probe the depths of it with the spirit of sincerity. I’m reminded here of Sir Ken Robinson who studies creativity. He said that university professors are too often “in their heads. They live up there and slightly to one side. They’re disembodied. They use their body as transport for their heads; it’s a way to get their heads to meetings.

The point he’s making is that professors have lost the spirit of creativity. They may know their field quite well, but they do not have the transformative spirit needed to enlighten students in ways that would make a positive difference in their heart and mind. When I say enlighten I’m not advocating any religion or ideology, rather, a kind of awareness that can only be acquired by direct experience which is outside of our educational institutions. Reports have been make that some people who have read and studied books on spirituality, for instance, had profound insights into their humanness that no amount of college could ever achieve. The pressing question is: how did this come about?
It seems to me that this is the kind of insight that our educational institutions are unaware of and unprepared for.

You may not agree with the passage below, but I believe it points to an aspect of our creative potential that is beyond the rational and intellectual mind. It is a kind of awareness that we are in dire need of since Sowell points out rightly, no amount of intellectual knowledge is going to make a positive difference.

To this question (about self knowledge) there is a positive answer only when the individual is willing to fulfill the demands of rigorous self-examination and self knowledge. If he follows through his intention, he will not only discover some important truths about himself, but will also have gained a psychological advantage: he will have succeeded in deeming himself worthy of serious attention and sympathetic interest. He will have set his hand, as it were, to a declaration of his own human dignity and taken the first step towards the foundation of his conscious- that is, towards the unconscious, the only accessible source of religious (creative) experience.

The “important truths” about ourselves speaks volumes and if the intelligentsia could “fulfill the demands of rigorous self examination” they would see the depth of their unconscious arrogance. Unfortunately, the intelligentsia are too deeply entrenched with believing they are the measure of all things. So I agree with you and Sowell that this is a problem and we ought to do something about it. But resolving it requires enlighten individuals; those who realize- among many other things- that humility goes a long way.

In reference to being a liberal, and to be honest, I am. However, I have no qualms calling out on Obama and his administration. I’ve been disillusioned so many times in the past that I now find myself beholden to no one. I’ve reached a point in which I’m sick and tired of seeing both parties at each other’s throats fighting, backstabbing, and manipulating the American people for political gain. I’m convinced that the political process is a massive dysfunction and I fear that if it continues, our future looks grim.

In reference to health care, it’s frustrating to hear hawks say that health reform is fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger deployment of troops in Afghanistan. It’s been reported that our lack of health insurance “kills about 45,000 Americans a year, according to a Harvard study released in September. So which is the greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional insurance system?”
I’m sure you would agree that our health care system is broken and it’s hard to believe that our political leaders are unable to address this


Aside from the above, you mentioned that we are required by law to have automobile liability insurance, regardless of our income. Driving record (the equivalent of pre-existing conditions in medical care) is used to score a person's risk. To keep their insurance costs down, smart people behave responsibly - choose a safe car, wear a seat belt, follow the laws, etc.
The smart people you refer to are those who have regard for their own safety and well being. By doing so, they also show regard for others by making sure their car is sound; the concern works both ways.
However, many people who drive without insurance, ride bikes without helmets, and avoid getting their car inspected for fear of what it might cost fail to realize that having good brakes could save their own life. The problem here is that we, as humans, have a proclivity to disregard our own health and well being. When we disregard ourselves we disregard others. Unfortunately we can’t expect or impose others to show concern since they are incapable of it towards themselves. Does this absolve them from responsibility? No. People who don’t care need to realize -in a very direct way-that their irresponsibility affects others. Taking responsibility for oneself is an issue I agree with conservatives. I really think we ought to have college courses on this. I know liberal friends who are lazy as hell and while it’s true they are to blame, this is only one piece of the puzzle. Societal factors and economical forces outside their control are also part of the problem. Greed is another.
In reference to this and the casual manner in which Drs. and others in the medical care BUSINESS are accused of it, you mentioned that the real greedy person is the irresponsible person who expects others to pay for their needs. It seems to me that if health insurance was as affordable as car insurance, this would not be an issue. I also think you underestimate the pathology of greed. Ever heard of Wendell Potter who blew the whistle on his own insurance company CIGNA? What he has to say would make anyone go ballistic on the health insurance companies since all of them are complicit in this.
Michael, it seems to me that what governs our country is not freedom, democracy, equality and all the rest, but the forces of the market. In the end, money and all the greed inherent in it have more influence than you and I can imagine. As Sowell aptly mentioned the fallacies of the intelligentsia in our universities we also have them in the market and this financial crisis is the result of those who were not only governed by greed but by this arrogance that they knew what they were doing.
Mind you, I’m not against capitalism, but if it continues its course without reflection, without concern for their own existence, they will drag us down with them.

First of all I would say don't bother criticizing Sowell unless you are actually going to watch the video and listen to what he has to say. If your mind is made up and you not changing then listening to alternative points of view is a pointless excercise. Sowell defines an intellectual very specifically. His criticism of intellectuals is specific to that particular definition of intellectuals. He is simply saying that people who are not going to be held responsible for the outcomes of their decisions should be viewed skeptically. After all these people have an incentive to make grand proclomations about how the country should be reorganized without any degree of modesty as to how their ideas conflict with the interests of others.

Sowell is not saying that scientists are making up global warming. What he is saying is that global warming is something that can be used as a tool for the state to take greater control of the private sector and there are plent of demagogues who can't wait to use global warming to serve their interests. This represents a conflict of interest that will effect how climate research if funded at the federal level. This is true of many other areas of research. Researchers realize that if their research makes alarmist predictions it will be more likely to receive government funding.

GnosisMan,

Dr. Sowell understands clearly that there is more to human nature than what he or any expert in the field can fathom. His point is that this fact doesn't seem to sink in to "experts" in the intelligentsia, as time after time, after time, they believe they have the wisom, intellect and ideas to model human nature in their own image, using other people's money. If they are wrong, they pay no consequences. For an excellent look into Dr. Sowell's views on human nature, please read his masterpiece (in my opinion) A Conflict of Visions.

As far as health care as a "right" - the question always comes to, "Who will pay?" I am assuming you are a left leaning individual (not meant as a perjorative) and believe in single payer, socialized medicine - that it is indeed a right that every "enlightened" nation should give its citizens. That's a fine position to take, but the reality of what you are saying, and what all socialized medicine proponents (and proponents of all government social programs) are saying is that they, person #1, want to confiscate the hard earned wealth of person #2, to buy medical care for person #3. Your "compassion" is what I call theft. I have heard and read the anecdotal evidence of people who claim they were bankrupted by medical bills. I have an acquaintence who was young and healthy and broke a femur and his pelv is in a car accident. His hospital bills totalled about $85,000.00. He owns a home, earns about $90,000 per year and leases a BMW sedan at $750.00 per month. Now, please explain to me why it is just to make others pay for this person's medical care. He was clearly not bankrupt. He could have made payments to the hospital. He could have swapped out the beemer for a Honda Accord, he could have been a responsible person. People like this are far more numerous than are reported, when the real stories are told in their entirety.

We are required by law to have automobile liability insurance, regardless of our income. Driving record (the equivalent of pre-existing conditions in medical care) is used to score a person's risk and the premiums he will pay. To keep their insurance costs down, smart people behave responsibly - choose a safe car, wear a seat belt, follow the laws, etc. If I am indigent and have 3 DUIs, I am still expected to pay that huge Auto Insurance bill, whether I can afford it or not.

The biggest problem in my view with our medical care system is that 3rd parties pay for everything. We have no idea what our medical care costs. We make a $10 co-pay and never even shop around for the lowest cost. I believe we should eliminate employer supplied health care, remove state restrictions for purchasing insurance among states and put the consumer back in charge. Why are Lasik and cosmetic surgery prices going down? Because the patient pays cash - and shops around, and only gets it if they can afford it. Drs. compete - the market works. Additionally, when a third party pays for coverage and the government mandates what must be covered, I am reduced to paying for services I do not want and will never use. Inefficiency is the rule of the day in everything the government does. I say we need true deregulation in the insurance industry.

The market will work for medical care. Once it becomes politicized, there is no hope for lower costs and efficiency, regardless of how compassionate the politicians and other proponents are.

I am also concerned with the casual manner in which Drs. and others in the medical care BUSINESS are accused of greed, when the real greedy person is the irresponsible person who expects others to pay for his needs. Are there other services that should be "not for profit" as Dennis Kucinich believes should be the rule for medical care? What about food? Certainly "In the richest country in the world," (to quote many an inconsolable, compassionate socialist) no one should go hungry! Food should be a RIGHT!" What about clothing? Shelter? Transportation? We can easily relinquish our responsibility for ourselves - most of Western Europe has done so - but what kind of citizens will we be?

I say I have a right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness and the responsibility to make it happen.

Imaleviathan,

Thanks for your thoughts. I took your advice and listened to his entire talk. While it is true that intellectuals are people whose “work begins and ends with ideas.” which includes academics from the humanities, social sciences, policy makers, and even journalists, to compare them with physicians or engineers is a mistake. The latter deals with tangible objects that can be measured and verified while the former deals with very complex social issues that is often beyond the realm of the most brilliant intellectuals. No doubt, intellectuals indeed pose a serious problem but the underlying problem does not lie solely with intellectuals.
The social construction of reality that we live in is of our making infected by greed, materialism, selfishness, the abuse of power, and no amount of intellectual acumen can address the vices of human nature and Sowell is certainly no exception. For instance, when he said that Chomsky’s ideas and theories in politics is an "absurdity" how can Sowell possibly say this? Why would Sowell dismiss Chomsky’s decades of study as if they are completely devoid of any truth? What makes Sowell the holder of truth? In this respect, when you said that rights become personalized Sowell absurdity comment was just as personalized by refusing to give Chomsky credit.
Sowell is certainly is able too see the many fallacies of intellectuals but he apparently is not able to see the limits of his own intellectual position and even intellect itself. Had Sowell known this, he would have said something akin to this:

“I believe we need to cultivate the kind of knowledge and awareness that would allow us to transcend our inner conflicts, our respective ego, our feeble intellect, and the unconscious primitive emotions that keep us in bondage”

Apparently, Dr. Sowell ought to consider that there is more to human nature than what he or any expert in the field can fathom.
Blaming intellectuals is only one small piece of a very big puzzle.


In reference to word 'right' as being personalized, yes this is true rights become hopelessly subjective especially if you cannot afford health care. But the issue is not the right to have heath care. The real issue here is that our political leaders, the insurance companies, lobbyists, and the pharmaceutical industry stick to their capitalistic guns. All they care about is the almighty dollar and I’m convinced that this has turned into a pathology of greed. As a result, it dehumanizes others. To think of the well being of the American people as the prime directive is as far removed from them as the planets. So in this regard, the right for these industries to make as much money as possible with a disregard of others is -as you said-a deceptive pitfall for fallacies. And this fallacy is killing and bankrupting many people unjustly.