You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
deee133 's review for:
Social Justice Fallacies
by Thomas Sowell
3.5
This book is written from the perspective of an economist and not as a sociologist or philosopher etc. so don't look to him for abstract theory or moral posturing!!! He's only interested in examining how these concepts play out in real-world outcomes and public policy. Which, like argh, fine, whatever. I get it. But for my personal enjoyment, I would've preferred more depth in exploring underlying social dynamics.
I do appreciate his hard look at desired versus actual outcomes. We really need to examine where certain policies actually leave us. Sowell illustrates how many well-intentioned racial inequality initiatives are not only misguided but also harmful to the very communities they claim to help. FINALLY someone talked about how patronizing it is to be told by so called white liberal academics that they know all the answers for solving your problems. Such "knowledge fallacies," as he explains, have lead social-justice advocates to conclude wrongly that decisions made by the government to help certain populations will be superior to those made by individuals themselves. He quotes a plethora of leftists, from Rousseau to Ralph Nader all expressing a disdain of the individual and a corresponding belief that elites, in the form of government, must protect the public from itself. Very rude.
The other point I really liked was on equal outcomes. He talks about how “the kind of world idealized by social justice advocates— a world with everyone having equal chances of success in all endeavors— was not only unattainable, but that its fervent but futile pursuit can lead to the opposite of what its advocates are seeking.” I think he's right. Are any of these ideals are even possible? What would we have to give up in order for them to be executed. And even if they were executed, would they actually lead to the desired outcome? People are not "inert chess pieces" and you cannot just "arrange" things the way you want because things are not fair.
The book was very interesting and leaves a lot to consider especially for someone like me, who leans more ideologically left. I can also see how some might view Sowell as a "Black bootstrapper" suggesting we focus less on systemic inequality and race. Fair! Sometimes he glosses over history too quickly for my liking, but if we're being honest, attributing race to every dang thing stops us from taking a nuanced view of complex issues today. Regardless of race, people have agency (sorry).
But at the same time the book left me feeling a bit...conflicted? He says that people will use certain data to prove their point when dealing with empirical evidence. And that they remain "largely impervious to evidence or conclusions contrary to their own beliefs," but isn't it a bit ironic because how do we know he’s not doing the same thing? He pulls from certain data and comes to these conclusions that even I would argue are a reach. How do we know he is not also unintentionally or intentionally bias and skewing the stats? Idk man, it's hard to trust anyone.
Either way, I like Thomas Sowell. This is the first book I've read by him and while I might not agree with him on everything, I appreciate the points he made and the perspective he brings as a Black person. The book was worth the read.
This book is written from the perspective of an economist and not as a sociologist or philosopher etc. so don't look to him for abstract theory or moral posturing!!! He's only interested in examining how these concepts play out in real-world outcomes and public policy. Which, like argh, fine, whatever. I get it. But for my personal enjoyment, I would've preferred more depth in exploring underlying social dynamics.
I do appreciate his hard look at desired versus actual outcomes. We really need to examine where certain policies actually leave us. Sowell illustrates how many well-intentioned racial inequality initiatives are not only misguided but also harmful to the very communities they claim to help. FINALLY someone talked about how patronizing it is to be told by so called white liberal academics that they know all the answers for solving your problems. Such "knowledge fallacies," as he explains, have lead social-justice advocates to conclude wrongly that decisions made by the government to help certain populations will be superior to those made by individuals themselves. He quotes a plethora of leftists, from Rousseau to Ralph Nader all expressing a disdain of the individual and a corresponding belief that elites, in the form of government, must protect the public from itself. Very rude.
The other point I really liked was on equal outcomes. He talks about how “the kind of world idealized by social justice advocates— a world with everyone having equal chances of success in all endeavors— was not only unattainable, but that its fervent but futile pursuit can lead to the opposite of what its advocates are seeking.” I think he's right. Are any of these ideals are even possible? What would we have to give up in order for them to be executed. And even if they were executed, would they actually lead to the desired outcome? People are not "inert chess pieces" and you cannot just "arrange" things the way you want because things are not fair.
The book was very interesting and leaves a lot to consider especially for someone like me, who leans more ideologically left. I can also see how some might view Sowell as a "Black bootstrapper" suggesting we focus less on systemic inequality and race. Fair! Sometimes he glosses over history too quickly for my liking, but if we're being honest, attributing race to every dang thing stops us from taking a nuanced view of complex issues today. Regardless of race, people have agency (sorry).
But at the same time the book left me feeling a bit...conflicted? He says that people will use certain data to prove their point when dealing with empirical evidence. And that they remain "largely impervious to evidence or conclusions contrary to their own beliefs," but isn't it a bit ironic because how do we know he’s not doing the same thing? He pulls from certain data and comes to these conclusions that even I would argue are a reach. How do we know he is not also unintentionally or intentionally bias and skewing the stats? Idk man, it's hard to trust anyone.
Either way, I like Thomas Sowell. This is the first book I've read by him and while I might not agree with him on everything, I appreciate the points he made and the perspective he brings as a Black person. The book was worth the read.