Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.09 AVERAGE
4.09 AVERAGE
IT IS BABY THOMAS SOWELL!
Just kidding. By the time he wrote this book, Thomas Sowell had well over a decade under his belt writing about issues of race, politics, and philosophy. But it still feels weird stepping back in time and reading a book by him that references the USSR.
This is a fantastic foundation if you want to explore the political and philosophical divide that separates the U.S. today. As always with Sowell, it is intellectual stimulating but easy to read. And honestly, despite the publishing date more than half the time it felt like a book that could have been written today. Do yourself a favor and give this one a try.
Just kidding. By the time he wrote this book, Thomas Sowell had well over a decade under his belt writing about issues of race, politics, and philosophy. But it still feels weird stepping back in time and reading a book by him that references the USSR.
This is a fantastic foundation if you want to explore the political and philosophical divide that separates the U.S. today. As always with Sowell, it is intellectual stimulating but easy to read. And honestly, despite the publishing date more than half the time it felt like a book that could have been written today. Do yourself a favor and give this one a try.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
A magnificent explanation of the undercurrent of political debates. Even if both sides agree that something must be done, all sides can have vastly different responses due to their underlying visions. A vision is the integral network of assumptions that each person has about how the world works. Few can fully articulate their vision, but all act upon them. This book explains why different visions are in a conflict with one another.
Sowell sets up a dichotomy between constraint and unconstraint visions to help explain the major reasons. Many visions are a mix of the two, but to help understand the conflict it really was easier to go into the extreme visions. The valuable knowledge in this book is immense, and helps explain why adversaries fight even though they want the same thing.
In terms of knowledge, the constraint vision see humans as being fundament limited, such that no one has supreme intellect over others. Even those that show more expertise in an area are vastly limited in what they know about the entire subject to make the necessary decisions. As for the unconstraint vision, humans have immense capabilities which means all it takes is to get those less intelligent and bring them up to the higher levels of intelligence.
Most of the argument between the two visions can be seen as a conflict between process and result. The unconstraint vision wants to achieve the result no matter the cost. While the constraint vision sees the result as being beyond capabilities and tries to make the necessary trade-offs to benefit the situation. The constraint vision takes into account the evolution of society and credits the past highly while giving new techniques great skepticism. The unconstraint vision seems the past as useless to the present and makes every adjustment to get the proper results needed.
Sowell is incredibly talented in explain the conflict of visions without much bias to either vision, although sometimes he does slip up and demonstrates how one vision is fits reality a bit better. Then again, sometimes emphasis the other vision more. The writing makes clear that each situation requires an understanding of each vision to see which will fit the situation better.
Sowell sets up a dichotomy between constraint and unconstraint visions to help explain the major reasons. Many visions are a mix of the two, but to help understand the conflict it really was easier to go into the extreme visions. The valuable knowledge in this book is immense, and helps explain why adversaries fight even though they want the same thing.
In terms of knowledge, the constraint vision see humans as being fundament limited, such that no one has supreme intellect over others. Even those that show more expertise in an area are vastly limited in what they know about the entire subject to make the necessary decisions. As for the unconstraint vision, humans have immense capabilities which means all it takes is to get those less intelligent and bring them up to the higher levels of intelligence.
Most of the argument between the two visions can be seen as a conflict between process and result. The unconstraint vision wants to achieve the result no matter the cost. While the constraint vision sees the result as being beyond capabilities and tries to make the necessary trade-offs to benefit the situation. The constraint vision takes into account the evolution of society and credits the past highly while giving new techniques great skepticism. The unconstraint vision seems the past as useless to the present and makes every adjustment to get the proper results needed.
Sowell is incredibly talented in explain the conflict of visions without much bias to either vision, although sometimes he does slip up and demonstrates how one vision is fits reality a bit better. Then again, sometimes emphasis the other vision more. The writing makes clear that each situation requires an understanding of each vision to see which will fit the situation better.
challenging
informative
medium-paced
This book was the best description of the fundamental differences in people's worldview that I have ever read. His research is expansive, bringing in philosophers from across the ages. The only major problem I had was with his repeated use of multiple partial quotes. He would string upwards of ten quotes together in a couple sentences, each quote only being a few words. This was incredibly jarring, either put in a long quote or just summarize.
In short: those who live according to the constrained vision believe that the natural state of the world is war, conflict, selfishness, and good action only because of incentives; they also believe that equality means equality of opportunity. Those who live according to the unconstrained vision believe that peace is the natural state and humans can actually want to do good for no ulterior motives; they believe that equality means equality of outcome.
I'm not sure that this book is worth recommending, but it does contain some really thoughtful analysis of why political ideologies and worldviews generally differ. I found Sowell's framework of the constrained vs. unconstrained vision to be helpful, especially in application to critically reading public economic research articles (which we did in the class that I read this book for). But the key impacts of this book could be communicated in a well-designed infographic chart. Instead, I waded through 200+ pages of really tough, dry reading that was often disorganized. The one pro of reading the book rather than asking someone you know to summarize it for you is that Sowell includes quotes from recognizable politicians and philosophers across history to support the constrained or unconstrained vision. Helpful for parsing out the unspoken assumptions that shape these philosophers' contributions that we often study.
On the topic of bias, Sowell definitely aligns himself with the constrained vision, which represents conservative politics. (I think most studied economists would be aligned with the constrained vision...) Despite the author's allegiance, his discussion of both viewpoints was fairly balanced—with the notable exception of a passage near the end of the book where he claims that unconstrained thinkers think that constrained thinkers lack morals and are active enemies to the world, but constrained thinkers merely think that the unconstrained school of thought is well-intentioned but misguided. This is an altogether too flattering view of Sowell's own worldview and not realistic at all. We can see in today's social conversations that regardless of your ideological perspective, it is incredibly difficult to not question the moral fiber and motives of your political opponent.
I'm not sure that this book is worth recommending, but it does contain some really thoughtful analysis of why political ideologies and worldviews generally differ. I found Sowell's framework of the constrained vs. unconstrained vision to be helpful, especially in application to critically reading public economic research articles (which we did in the class that I read this book for). But the key impacts of this book could be communicated in a well-designed infographic chart. Instead, I waded through 200+ pages of really tough, dry reading that was often disorganized. The one pro of reading the book rather than asking someone you know to summarize it for you is that Sowell includes quotes from recognizable politicians and philosophers across history to support the constrained or unconstrained vision. Helpful for parsing out the unspoken assumptions that shape these philosophers' contributions that we often study.
On the topic of bias, Sowell definitely aligns himself with the constrained vision, which represents conservative politics. (I think most studied economists would be aligned with the constrained vision...) Despite the author's allegiance, his discussion of both viewpoints was fairly balanced—with the notable exception of a passage near the end of the book where he claims that unconstrained thinkers think that constrained thinkers lack morals and are active enemies to the world, but constrained thinkers merely think that the unconstrained school of thought is well-intentioned but misguided. This is an altogether too flattering view of Sowell's own worldview and not realistic at all. We can see in today's social conversations that regardless of your ideological perspective, it is incredibly difficult to not question the moral fiber and motives of your political opponent.
Pretty good. I noticed a fair amount of repetition. I feel like the book could have used a summary table comparing the two visions.
A very important book for understanding the thought processes behind the political ideology dichotomy that’s been around for centuries. Sowell, numerous times throughout the text, clarified that no one has expressed either vision 100% nor does anyone particularly fit exactly within the confines of either. He uses two broad visions to simplify the case. Despite Sowell’s adherence to the conservative-libertarian mindset I was pleasantly surprised at his impartiality in this book. This explains why I’ve seen people of all different types of political backgrounds to recommend this book. 4/5 stars
Almost 30 years ago, economist and Stanford professor Thomas Sowell published a book outlining what he sees as some of the reasons we have different political views in society. The 1987 A Conflict of Visions was reprinted in 2002 and revised in 2007, but the basic thesis remains the same.
Sowell believes that the root of political differences can be found in ideology -- which is not by itself a new claim to make. His identification of those ideologies, however, is not exactly the same as we often see in fights between conservatives and liberals or progressives. Sowell sees one group as holding what he calls an "unconstrained" view of human intellect and ability, which means that they believe people -- some of them, anyway -- are smart enough to figure out the best answers to all current problems and make them happen. The other group holds a "constrained" view of human intelligence and nature. These people think that attempting to address problems without paying attention to the accumulated wisdom and understanding of preceding generations is a bad idea. Human beings can't know everything and can't necessarily find the perfect solution to any problem, let alone all of them.
Generally, folks who operate with an unconstrained vision of humanity fall into the liberal or progressive camp. Those who hold to a constrained vision will tend to be more conservative. Sowell points out that very few people hold to pure views at either end and are more likely to have a mix of beliefs.
Having laid out his understanding, Sowell then goes on to address a few of the social and political questions usually on our mind in terms of these competing visions. Anyone who reads him regularly knows he holds to the more constrained vision of human capabilities, but he generally does a pretty fair job of explaining both sides. The book tends to drag as Sowell gathers perhaps too many different examples of the two visions, but overall it's a good way to start thinking about our modern political differences and where they come from.
Those who share much of Sowell's thinking can obviously benefit from his discussion of different political and social arguments, but even people who disagree with Sowell about which vision is a more accurate description of the world would be well-served to take some time to explore one way of understanding why they believe what they believe. After all, taking a long-held belief out for a spin and seeing what it may or may not still have under the hood is rarely a bad idea.
Original available here.
Sowell believes that the root of political differences can be found in ideology -- which is not by itself a new claim to make. His identification of those ideologies, however, is not exactly the same as we often see in fights between conservatives and liberals or progressives. Sowell sees one group as holding what he calls an "unconstrained" view of human intellect and ability, which means that they believe people -- some of them, anyway -- are smart enough to figure out the best answers to all current problems and make them happen. The other group holds a "constrained" view of human intelligence and nature. These people think that attempting to address problems without paying attention to the accumulated wisdom and understanding of preceding generations is a bad idea. Human beings can't know everything and can't necessarily find the perfect solution to any problem, let alone all of them.
Generally, folks who operate with an unconstrained vision of humanity fall into the liberal or progressive camp. Those who hold to a constrained vision will tend to be more conservative. Sowell points out that very few people hold to pure views at either end and are more likely to have a mix of beliefs.
Having laid out his understanding, Sowell then goes on to address a few of the social and political questions usually on our mind in terms of these competing visions. Anyone who reads him regularly knows he holds to the more constrained vision of human capabilities, but he generally does a pretty fair job of explaining both sides. The book tends to drag as Sowell gathers perhaps too many different examples of the two visions, but overall it's a good way to start thinking about our modern political differences and where they come from.
Those who share much of Sowell's thinking can obviously benefit from his discussion of different political and social arguments, but even people who disagree with Sowell about which vision is a more accurate description of the world would be well-served to take some time to explore one way of understanding why they believe what they believe. After all, taking a long-held belief out for a spin and seeing what it may or may not still have under the hood is rarely a bad idea.
Original available here.