4 ms·

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 crit

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 intellectual detail is clearly there. But I can see how his straightforward style would be unpersuasive. Any one statement or paragraph or essay can be picked at by someone looking to do so. As a teacher and thought leader, he's been very successful. As a political commentator, he's preaching to the choir.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
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 of truth. But that's rhetoric, not science. Science is peer review and open debate, and I don't see him engaging in that.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  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 agree with your premise, and you did nothing to convince me. Why should I believe your conclusions?"
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    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.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      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.
- chmod600 6y ago
  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.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    Personally, I prefer my teachers with some humility and the ability to admit that they're sometimes wrong.
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      You’d like Sowell then. He has done a complete 180 and completely changed his views as he learned more.
mcguire 6y ago
This is why I've never been tempted by his books. His editorials come off not so much dismissive as smugly dismissive: he's not only obviously right, anyone who questions him is obviously stupid. I don't know about him as a teacher, but as a thought leader, he is successful because he says the things that the right people want to hear.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  I would guess what you’re seeing is not an arrogant man who anyone would be stupid to question (though most would, to be honest), but someone who has devoted 50 or so years to learning and seeing every new generation make the same mistakes that he once made. He was originally a marxist. But if you aren’t even willing to listen to him, it’s moot anyway.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Try a Conflict Of Visions. It's not at all smug or dismissive. In fact it's one of the most balanced books I've ever read. I didn't know who the author was before I read it, and by the time I finished, I felt I still knew nothing about the author. But I also felt I suddenly understood politics and the world, for the first time in my life. It was a mind-expanding experience. I immediately bought several copies so I could give them away to friends and family. Later I found his videos and was surprised to learn he's a black conservative. That wasn't apparent from the book.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

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 of truth. But that's rhetoric, not science. Science is peer review and open debate, and I don't see him engaging in that.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
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 agree with your premise, and you did nothing to convince me. Why should I believe your conclusions?"
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  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.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    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.
chmod600 6y ago
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.
- mcguire 6y ago
  Personally, I prefer my teachers with some humility and the ability to admit that they're sometimes wrong.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    You’d like Sowell then. He has done a complete 180 and completely changed his views as he learned more.

mcguire 6y ago

This is why I've never been tempted by his books. His editorials come off not so much dismissive as smugly dismissive: he's not only obviously right, anyone who questions him is obviously stupid. I don't know about him as a teacher, but as a thought leader, he is successful because he says the things that the right people want to hear.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago
I would guess what you’re seeing is not an arrogant man who anyone would be stupid to question (though most would, to be honest), but someone who has devoted 50 or so years to learning and seeing every new generation make the same mistakes that he once made. He was originally a marxist. But if you aren’t even willing to listen to him, it’s moot anyway.
thu2111 6y ago
Try a Conflict Of Visions. It's not at all smug or dismissive. In fact it's one of the most balanced books I've ever read. I didn't know who the author was before I read it, and by the time I finished, I felt I still knew nothing about the author. But I also felt I suddenly understood politics and the world, for the first time in my life. It was a mind-expanding experience. I immediately bought several copies so I could give them away to friends and family. Later I found his videos and was surprised to learn he's a black conservative. That wasn't apparent from the book.