• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dr. Sowell Intellectuals and Society

Do you largely agree with Dr. Sowell

  • Libs: Yes, I agree

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Libs: No, I don't agree

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Republicans: Yes, I agree

    Votes: 2 40.0%

  • Repubicans: No, I don't agree

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Independents: Yes, I agree

    Votes: 1 20.0%

  • Independents: No, I don't agree

    Votes: 2 40.0%

  • Progressives/Moderates:Yes, I agree

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Progressives/Moderates: No, I don't agree

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    5
  • Poll closed .
zimmer

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
FORA.tv - Thomas Sowell: Intellectuals and Society

Do you agree with most if not all that Dr. Sowell establishes?

It will take an hour of your time, but for Libs, it beats another hour of reality TV or MSNBC, CNN, ABC or CBS, NBC (unreality TV). :)

If not, what do you disagree with.

.
 
spud_meister said:
i'm a Lib, and i dont watch reality TV or MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS or NBC
Click to expand...

LOL...

What a dog's breakfast that poll is... ugh admin... editing assistance please.

.
 
Last edited:
Watching it now. Very good so far.

A+

Good find.

Have not answered the poll yet...

A progressive and a lib are the same thing.
I am not a Republican or Democrat. I am also not an independent. I am a moderate conservative.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Sowell, is my hero.

People should watch this, it is truly worth your time.
 
It's pretty good and it seems that he is a follow up to what Hayek wrote about all those years ago.

I give Sowell an A but the overall video gets a B, they didn't need to plug his book so much, it's annoying.

I can't see how he hasn't won a Noble prize for his work.
 
The problem with Sowell's assertion is that intellectuals don't all agree. In fact, they famously disagree, particularly within their fields of expertise.

When they get outside their fields of expertise, they have considerably less understanding, and intellectuals tend to do what everyone else does--they agree with the people to whom they are most often exposed. That creates a kind of herd mentality. The thing is--EVERYONE ELSE does this as well. Most people's political opinions are formed not by thorough study and rigorous analysis, but by adopting the thoughts of opinion leaders in their own lives.

But intellectuals are also trained in rigorous analysis--they are actually capable of it. What intellectual could use a bit more of (along with everyone else) is humility, a rigorous sense of where their understanding ends.

But Sowell makes his greatest mistake in the primary assumption of his title--that there is a great, homogenous group called "intellectuals" who somehow all believe and act the same way. They don't. Moreover, Sowell knows this.

What I'm most afraid of is that arguments like this will be used to elect anti-intellectuals--people who actually don't know very much and have limited abilities to think critically. We have no shortage of such people in American politics.
 
There are ironic points in this. For example, Sowell says "the fatal misstep of intellectuals is assuming that superior ability within a particular realm can be generalized to superior wisdom or morality overall"

The irony is that Sowell is an economist, but this discussion is about sociology.

:lol::lol:
 
Tucker Case said:
There are ironic points in this. For example, Sowell says "the fatal misstep of intellectuals is assuming that superior ability within a particular realm can be generalized to superior wisdom or morality overall"

The irony is that Sowell is an economist, but this discussion is about sociology.

:lol::lol:
Click to expand...

Economics is a social science man.
 
Rassales said:
What's your point? I mean, your very argument is the one Sowell opposes.
Click to expand...

Economics measures the wants and needs of a society and individuals.
Sometimes it just does the raw numbers and other times is measures what motivates people to do certain things, like buying product x and why they choose that over product y.

I think he is, generally, accurate in describing what people want to believe, particularly those we look to as the learned.

I don't think he opposes it, the majority of his argument is that decentralized knowledge is superior to that of centralized knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
There are ironic points in this. For example, Sowell says "the fatal misstep of intellectuals is assuming that superior ability within a particular realm can be generalized to superior wisdom or morality overall"

The irony is that Sowell is an economist, but this discussion is about sociology.

:lol::lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much. Just another intellectual who thinks he knows everything. Comedy gold.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Economics measures the wants and needs of a society and individuals.
Click to expand...
Actually, economics speaks only to MATERIAL wants and needs. There are a great many motivations outside the acquisition of wealth, and Sowell's topic in the video speaks to those non-wealth-oriented motivations.
Sometimes it just does the raw numbers and other times is measures what motivates people to do certain things, like buying product x and why they choose that over product y.

I think he is, generally, accurate in describing what people want to believe, particularly those we look to as the learned.

I don't think he opposes it, the majority of his argument is that decentralized knowledge is superior to that of centralized knowledge.
Click to expand...
IF that were the only effect of his argument, I'd agree. But he's implying that "consequential knowledge" is spread out equally among the decentalized populace. That isn't true.

If the US had problem with fawning over the learned, his point might be important (perhaps his book should be published in French). But instead we fawn over the wealthy and powerful. American culture is already makes us wary of intellectuals.

Telling people things they already think doesn't make one's ideas important--just popular. I'm guessing his real aim is to sell lots of books by reiterating to people what they already think.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Economics is a social science man.
Click to expand...

Social science =/= sociology.

Sociology is a specific branch of the social sciences. Just like psychology or economics are specific branches of the social sciences.


Would you automatically consider Dr. Phil to be a credible economist simply because he's versed in a social science?
 
Rassales said:
Actually, economics speaks only to MATERIAL wants and needs. There are a great many motivations outside the acquisition of wealth, and Sowell's topic in the video speaks to those non-wealth-oriented motivations.
Click to expand...

Yes and no, there are somethings in economics that don't always apply to material things, particularly medical care and other services.

Which is actually where I drew my personal connection to what he was talking about.

Rassales said:
IF that were the only effect of his argument, I'd agree. But he's implying that "consequential knowledge" is spread out equally among the decentalized populace. That isn't true.
Click to expand...

I didn't take that from him, I took the general idea that knowledge can not be centralized and that its best left to a decentralized group to decide.

Rassales said:
If the US had problem with fawning over the learned, his point might be important (perhaps his book should be published in French). But instead we fawn over the wealthy and powerful. American culture is already makes us wary of intellectuals.
Click to expand...

When fawn over the learned when it supports our arguments/beliefs.

I do agree that we love to fawn over those with wealth and power though as well.

Rassales said:
Telling people things they already think doesn't make one's ideas important--just popular. I'm guessing his real aim is to sell lots of books by reiterating to people what they already think.
Click to expand...

Probably true, I hated how they kept plugging his book.

I think it was a good video for 1 thing, that simple statistics don't always tell the whole story.
I think a lot of people should see so that they don't always take statistics as gospel.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Social science =/= sociology.

Sociology is a specific branch of the social sciences. Just like psychology or economics are specific branches of the social sciences.
Click to expand...

Of course, they can overlap a lot though.


Tucker Case said:
Would you automatically consider Dr. Phil to be a credible economist simply because he's versed in a social science?
Click to expand...

Depends on what he was talking about, I think a sociologist or psychologist could accurately describe some things with in economics.

The idea of the token economy came from psychology.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Of course, they can overlap a lot though.

Depends on what he was talking about, I think a sociologist or psychologist could accurately describe some things with in economics.

The idea of the token economy came from psychology.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that there is some degree of overlap within the social sciences, just as there is overlap between the natural sciences, but the specific statement by Sowell that I'm talking about is not something that overlaps with economics.
 
Okay, fair enough. But I would add this, just for the record
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yes and no, there are somethings in economics that don't always apply to material things, particularly medical care and other services.
Click to expand...
Both goods and services are material, in that they have material effect on tangiible, measurable elements of a person's life. They are inherently limited. This makes them different from the two other motivations recognized by sociology: power and prestige.

I think Sowell's book is more nuisance than helpful because it does more to reiterate the prejudices of anti-intellectualism than to make a serious and timely warning about trusting intellectuals too much. We have nowhere near the respect for intellectuals that would warrant much attention to this argument. Our politics is dominated much more by anti-intellectualism.
 
Rassales said:
Okay, fair enough. But I would add this, just for the recordBoth goods and services are material, in that they have material effect on tangiible, measurable elements of a person's life. They are inherently limited. This makes them different from the two other motivations recognized by sociology: power and prestige.
Click to expand...

I think there are some things that you can derive power and prestige from in economics, sports cars etc.

Your largely right though.

Rassales said:
I think Sowell's book is more nuisance than helpful because it does more to reiterate the prejudices of anti-intellectualism than to make a serious and timely warning about trusting intellectuals too much. We have nowhere near the respect for intellectuals that would warrant much attention to this argument. Our politics is dominated much more by anti-intellectualism.
Click to expand...

I agree but I think instead of it being anti-intellectualism, it's more of a critical review of what is considered intellectual thought.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I agree but I think instead of it being anti-intellectualism, it's more of a critical review of what is considered intellectual thought.
Click to expand...

But it's being done by an intellectual who is doing exactly what he's denouncing. :lol:

Not that I don't agree with him somewhat. One could even say he's proving his own point.
 
Tucker Case said:
But it's being done by an intellectual who is doing exactly what he's denouncing. :lol:

Not that I don't agree with him somewhat. One could even say he's proving his own point.
Click to expand...

How else can you do it though? :confused:

The guy at the 7-11, while being entertaining and jolly, most likely couldn't do it. :2razz:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
How else can you do it though? :confused:
Click to expand...

He could have left it to the sociologists. :lol:


The guy at the 7-11, while being entertaining and jolly, most likely couldn't do it. :2razz:
Click to expand...

:rofl

I'm assuming you were going for intellectual elitism on purpose here, and if so, BRILLIANTLY Done! :lol:
 
It's no coincidence that Sowell and the conservative Heritage Foundation are so opposed to "intellectuals." This reflects a decade-old bias against professors by conservatives. Interestingly, today's NYT has an article about liberalism among academics, and part of their reputation comes from conservatives themselves. Opposition to intellectuals in government was a trope for mid-century conservatives:
“Conservatives weren’t just expressing outrage,” Mr. Gross said, “they were also trying to build a conservative identity.” They defined themselves in opposition to the New Deal liberals who occupied the establishment’s precincts. Hence Buckley’s quip in the early 1960s: “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”
Click to expand...
Professor Is a Label That Leans to the Left - NYTimes.com
 
Rassales said:
It's no coincidence that Sowell and the conservative Heritage Foundation are so opposed to "intellectuals." This reflects a decade-old bias against professors by conservatives. Interestingly, today's NYT has an article about liberalism among academics, and part of their reputation comes from conservatives themselves. Opposition to intellectuals in government was a trope for mid-century conservatives: Professor Is a Label That Leans to the Left - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

But Sowell is an intellectual and a professor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom