What do you think?
Rate this book
Discrimination and Disparities
A searching re-examination of the assumptions, and the evidence for and against, current approaches to issues of economic and other disparities
Discrimination and Disparities challenges believers in such one-factor explanations of economic outcome differences as discrimination, exploitation or genetics. It is readable enough for people with no prior knowledge of economics. Yet the empirical evidence with which it backs up its analysis spans the globe and challenges beliefs across the ideological spectrum.
The point of Discrimination and Disparities is not to recommend some particular policy "fix" at the end, but to clarify why so many policy fixes have turned out to be counterproductive, and to expose some seemingly invincible fallacies behind many counterproductive policies.
The final chapter deals with social visions and their human consequences.
Discrimination and Disparities challenges believers in such one-factor explanations of economic outcome differences as discrimination, exploitation or genetics. It is readable enough for people with no prior knowledge of economics. Yet the empirical evidence with which it backs up its analysis spans the globe and challenges beliefs across the ideological spectrum.
The point of Discrimination and Disparities is not to recommend some particular policy "fix" at the end, but to clarify why so many policy fixes have turned out to be counterproductive, and to expose some seemingly invincible fallacies behind many counterproductive policies.
The final chapter deals with social visions and their human consequences.
192 pages, Hardcover
First published March 20, 2018
About the author
Thomas Sowell
83 books4,702 followersThomas Sowell is an American economist, social commentator, and author of dozens of books. He often writes from an economically laissez-faire perspective. He is currently a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. In 1990, he won the Francis Boyer Award, presented by the American Enterprise Institute. In 2002 he was awarded the National Humanities Medal for prolific scholarship melding history, economics, and political science.
Sowell was born in North Carolina, where, he recounted in his autobiography, A Personal Odyssey, his encounters with Caucasians were so limited he didn't believe that "yellow" was a hair color. He moved to Harlem, New York City with his mother's sister (whom he believed was his mother); his father had died before he was born. Sowell went to Stuyvesant High School, but dropped out at 17 because of financial difficulties and a deteriorating home environment. He worked at various jobs to support himself, including in a machine shop and as a delivery man for Western Union. He applied to enter the Civil Service and was eventually accepted, moving to Washington DC. He was drafted in 1951, during the Korean War, and assigned to the US Marine Corps. Due to prior experience in photography, he worked in a photography unit.
After his discharge, Sowell passed the GED examination and enrolled at Howard University. He transfered to Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics. He received a Master of Arts in Economics from Columbia University, and a Doctor of Philosophy in Economics from the University of Chicago. Sowell initially chose Columbia University because he wanted to study under George Stigler. After arriving at Columbia and learning that Stigler had moved to Chicago, he followed him there.
Sowell has taught Economics at Howard University, Cornell University, Brandeis University, and UCLA. Since 1980 he has been a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he holds a fellowship named after Rose and Milton Friedman.
Sowell was born in North Carolina, where, he recounted in his autobiography, A Personal Odyssey, his encounters with Caucasians were so limited he didn't believe that "yellow" was a hair color. He moved to Harlem, New York City with his mother's sister (whom he believed was his mother); his father had died before he was born. Sowell went to Stuyvesant High School, but dropped out at 17 because of financial difficulties and a deteriorating home environment. He worked at various jobs to support himself, including in a machine shop and as a delivery man for Western Union. He applied to enter the Civil Service and was eventually accepted, moving to Washington DC. He was drafted in 1951, during the Korean War, and assigned to the US Marine Corps. Due to prior experience in photography, he worked in a photography unit.
After his discharge, Sowell passed the GED examination and enrolled at Howard University. He transfered to Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics. He received a Master of Arts in Economics from Columbia University, and a Doctor of Philosophy in Economics from the University of Chicago. Sowell initially chose Columbia University because he wanted to study under George Stigler. After arriving at Columbia and learning that Stigler had moved to Chicago, he followed him there.
Sowell has taught Economics at Howard University, Cornell University, Brandeis University, and UCLA. Since 1980 he has been a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he holds a fellowship named after Rose and Milton Friedman.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 626 reviews
April 11, 2020
A disparity does not equal discrimination the same way correlation does not equal causation. Too often do activists look at disparities and immediately assume discrimination is the reason behind it. Economist Thomas Sowell shows the reader how disparities, often large, can manifest without any malicious intervention and can be explained for reasons other than discrimination. Sowell also goes into detail how many of the proposals offered to close disparities have large consequences when put into effect.
Edit (4/11/20): I decided to change “human intervention” to “malicious intervention” to be more accurate. Although Sowell does discuss some disparities that manifest without any human intervention.
Edit (4/11/20): I decided to change “human intervention” to “malicious intervention” to be more accurate. Although Sowell does discuss some disparities that manifest without any human intervention.
July 7, 2018
Sowell is just magnificent. A combination of horse sense, clear writing, and a passionate commitment to the truth.
March 30, 2019
I love anything Sowell writes. This was published in 2018 when Sowell was in his mid-eighties. His towering intellect and clear communication shine in dark corners and bring hope and common sense to some very hard things.
May 4, 2018
A rehash of the tired and weak arguments from Thomas Sowell that basically say let the market solve the problems of poverty and racism, and if that doesn't work, then blacks just need to act more like white people to fit in economically. The author cherry picks examples that back his premise but offers very little in terms of research and real evidence. You can get the same viewpoint by watching Fox News.
September 16, 2018
I read this book with an open mind as it was recommended to me by my right-leaning nephew in law. I appreciated his logical explanation of disparities but feel he failed in explaining discrimination, or why it might continue to persist. He himself seems to feel the poor and people of color, especially blacks are practically worthy of discrimination with the way he sets up examples and the biased language he uses (‘lazy’ ‘hoodlums’ ‘hooligans’). These descriptions seem more like social commentary than economic explanation of reality. And while the chapters near the end were title ‘Solutions’, I didn’t hear (I listened to the audiobook) any kind of idea that would improve any of the situations he described.
And it seems like he’s been working this same broken record since at least 2006; see this preview of a critical article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20064129
(Doesn’t open properly in the GR app)
And it seems like he’s been working this same broken record since at least 2006; see this preview of a critical article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20064129
(Doesn’t open properly in the GR app)
March 26, 2018
Throughout his long and distinguished career Thomas Sowell has been a consistent stickler for truth. In this book he takes empirical aim at the truth about outcomes. In short, social scholars and economists inevitably over-simplify cause and effect and fail to accept that “grossly unequal distributions of outcomes are common, both in nature and among people, in circumstances where neither genes nor discrimination are involved.”
The book is short, to the point, and very clearly written. You don’t need a degree in sociology or economics to follow. The arguments are steeped in common sense, which is where we often lose sight of the truth in our admirable but misguided desire to do the “right” thing.
The problem is actually much bigger than the areas of social justice addressed in the book. It is a problem that is quickly eroding the value of all of our political, social, educational, and economic discourse.
Type “This is what science says about …” into Google and you’ll get close to 1.5 billion hits. News outlets and social commentators use the heading daily. In reality, however, “science”, which is an empirical methodology, not a body of knowledge, probably says nothing about the topic of the article, and whatever apparent “facts” the author includes probably say even less in the larger context of truth and meaning.
Technology, of course, is making the problem worse. Technology gives a voice to every would-be opinion-maker, and falsely reinforces, in all of its 1’s and 0’s, that math and statistics are inevitably and inherently “true.” That's not true. To the extent it is true it is typically so only in the one dimension in which the author uses it to advance his or her point in the article. That’s not the multi-dimensional and dynamic world, however, where most important reality, like opportunity, compassion, and fairness actually lives.
My only complaint is that the electronic book is over-priced for what it is. The author doesn’t typically set the price and Mr. Sowell is a premium intellect that deserves a premium price tag on his thoughts. It is, nonetheless, an empirically supported criticism, so I’m hopeful Mr. Sowell will forgive me that.
The book is short, to the point, and very clearly written. You don’t need a degree in sociology or economics to follow. The arguments are steeped in common sense, which is where we often lose sight of the truth in our admirable but misguided desire to do the “right” thing.
The problem is actually much bigger than the areas of social justice addressed in the book. It is a problem that is quickly eroding the value of all of our political, social, educational, and economic discourse.
Type “This is what science says about …” into Google and you’ll get close to 1.5 billion hits. News outlets and social commentators use the heading daily. In reality, however, “science”, which is an empirical methodology, not a body of knowledge, probably says nothing about the topic of the article, and whatever apparent “facts” the author includes probably say even less in the larger context of truth and meaning.
Technology, of course, is making the problem worse. Technology gives a voice to every would-be opinion-maker, and falsely reinforces, in all of its 1’s and 0’s, that math and statistics are inevitably and inherently “true.” That's not true. To the extent it is true it is typically so only in the one dimension in which the author uses it to advance his or her point in the article. That’s not the multi-dimensional and dynamic world, however, where most important reality, like opportunity, compassion, and fairness actually lives.
My only complaint is that the electronic book is over-priced for what it is. The author doesn’t typically set the price and Mr. Sowell is a premium intellect that deserves a premium price tag on his thoughts. It is, nonetheless, an empirically supported criticism, so I’m hopeful Mr. Sowell will forgive me that.
April 3, 2018
It is amazing to see Thomas Sowell still writing books at 87, an age when most will have long since retired. Much of this will be familiar to those who have read Sowell’s other works. He offers a fact based explanation for differences in disparities that is at odds with the prevailing social vision.
February 18, 2022
Why read Sowell?
1. Sowell's not some charlatan, Johnny-come-lately-to-econ panderer. He's been a Professor at Stanford for the last 40 years. He's well respected in his field, and has written countless books and articles. (Okay. He's an Econ prof. They're probably not countless. They're probably countable, but I'm not about to tally them up.)
2. In my Liberal circles, it has become fashionable to elevate black voices. And there are a litany of black voices modern and classic, politics, literature (Kendi, Coates, Baldwin, Alexander, Wright, Haley, Morrison, Laymon), etc... But I've noticed we've often written off Conservative black voices before even giving them a chance. And look: I get it. I understand what Rep. Pressley was saying when she said,"We don't need more brown faces who don't want to be a brown voice." I agree with the argument that racism is (and should be) a descriptive rather than a pejorative, and that people of color can be and are racist when they perpetuate racist systems and ideologies. Still, the idea that voices-of-color only applies to Liberal voices-of-color is intellectually and academically dishonest.
3. It's a clearly stated, Conservative book - written in good faith. The vast, vast majority of Conservative books I've read have fallen into a number of unsavory categories: vitriolic polemic drivel (Shapiro, Hegseth), weak arguments/and or boring (Murray), old (Bastiat), or claiming to be from the Conservative perspective, but secretly written by a Berkeley Liberal... (I'm looking at you, Hochschild). So even though I disagreed with Sowell several places, his arguments were clear. He wasn't shouting at me to invigorate his base. And he gave me pause to consider a different perspective. In general, most of the Liberal books (especially Econ books) I read are like this - Gang Leader for a Day, Evicted, Nickel and Dimed, Strangers in Their Own Land, The New Jim Crow, etc... I wish more Conservative books were as well. Any goodreader out there that wants to point me in the right direction, feel free. Also, I recognize that a lot of Econ books aren't really Conservative or Liberal. (Gang Leader for a Day, I listed as Liberal, but I'm not sure it is. Or Factfulness. I'm putting that on the Conservative side, but is it?)
The key premise of the book is that we're quick to jump to conclusions - often based on outcomes. There are disparities all over the place. Do those disparities automatically equate to racism or sexism or any other litany of factors? Maybe. But Sowell's contention is that we're too quick ascribe racist motives when there are many, many other explanations. (Though he points out that racism may be a factor.) Or even when racism is a factor (or may be a factor) are there other economic considerations at play?
Consider redlining. This short video from NPR should bring you up to speed. It's a problem. De jure or de facto, it's a problem. Cities were designed this way, and even as we've progressed as a society, injustices have persisted because they were created to exist in the plat map.
But Sowell points out that many of these anti-redlining white liberals who would "never walk through a particular neighborhood at night, or perhaps not even in broad daylight, may nevertheless be indignant at banks that engage in "redlining" - that is, putting a whole neighborhood off limits as a place to invest their depositors' money. The observers' own "redlining" in their choices of where to walk may never be seen by them as a different example of the same principle." (p. 31) Point, Sowell.
Granted, I'm not the one who drew up the city. And drawing up the original lines seems particularly racist and unjust. But should I blame banks for doing today what most sensibly-self-preserving people would do today?
Throughout the book, Sowell had many such points on a variety of interrelated topics. The Left confuses tax rates and tax revenues - so that when we lower tax rates, and tax revenues go up, that's not really tax break for the rich. They're paying more and making more than when their wealth is tied up in off-shore accounts neither making them money nor being taxed.
"Nothing is easier to find than sins among human beings, but to automatically make those sins the sole, or even primary, cause of different outcomes among different peoples is to ignore many other reasons for those disparities." -p. 18 BUT right from pages one and two: "When there is some endeavor with five prerequisites for success, then by definition the chances of success in that endeavor depend on having all five of those prerequisites simultaneously... Only those with all five of those prerequisites succeed."
His point here is both very good, but also seems to argue against itself. We shouldn't jump straight to racism - especially when disparities can be explained multiple different ways. But when all 5 prerequisites are necessary, and the one that is missing is not actually a prerequisite, but just melanin... You see what I'm saying? He's saying just one thing is enough to keep someone or a segment locked out. It could be birth order, poverty, family upbringing, how much they were read to as a child, etc... But it could be race.
It would take too long to go through all his good points - or bring up the dozens of questions and counterpoints. Rather than that, here's a sampling:
Is it fair to judge Cuban immigrants (wet feet, dry feet) the way we judge other immigrants?
Why all the Iraqi refugees? (specifically 204)
Sowell is judging US schools and standardized test scores against nations that don't test every student.
Sowell's points on Orwell and sports are quite backward. He's pulling from Orwell's essay, "The English People," but definitely check out his, "The Sporting Spirit." He quotes Orwell, "...In sports competition, British competitors were renowned for their sportsmanship," but Orwell - who he quoted earlier extolling the politeness and later on the "law-abiding behavior" of the British, says, "sporting competitions lead to orgies of hatred" and that sport is, "an unfailing cause of ill-will." For Sowell to be saying that things were so much better and more polite in the past... Ecclesiastes 7:10. Come on. (Also, Orwell was a Socialist. Just saying.)
On page 188 Sowell discusses Merit vs. Productivity. He states, "Judging merit in the sense of moral worth that we could credit or blame an individual for, if we knew and understood all the myriad of factors impinging on that particular individual's life, seems beyond the realm of human knowledge." I'm with him, but if I have two girls try out for the volleyball team. One's a little better than the other, but has had private lessons for 7 years, I'm probably taking the worse girl - based on merit. Maybe you're saying, dear reader, that I'm still taking based on productivity - that I believe ultimately that her productivity will be greater in the long run, but I'm basing the initial cut on merit. And of course, who's to say it's the right choice. Maybe that other girl has parents who will keep pushing her, and keep driving her to those private lessons and practices, whereas this other girl will become academically ineligible within three weeks? I don't know. I think it's a discussion worth having, though.
In an era of group-identity politics, various group spokesmen, activists or "leaders" may be preoccupied with languages as badges of cultural identity, but cultures exist to serve human beings. Human beings do not exist to preserve cultures, or to preserve socially isolated constituency for the benefit of "leaders." Why create or perpetuate cultural handicaps for minority youngsters in today's America that were inescapable handicaps for minority youngsters in many other countries in earlier times with fewer and narrower options. -p. 194 ...While I hear what Sowell is saying here, and am adamant that my students learn English... that's the kind of thinking that gave us Iowa's county map, and the reason I'm opposed to the metric system. (Kindof.)
And really, I think I completely disagree with the concluding page of the book. "Nothing that Germans can do today will in any way mitigate the staggering evils of what Hitler did in the past. Nor can apologies in America today for slavery in the past have any meaning, much less do any good, for either blacks or whites today." ...I mean, one of us - either Sowell, or myself - does not understand how forgiveness works. ...Even to the third and fourth generation.
So, I had my problems with the book: sure. Why then, five stars? I think it was good for me to read, and I want to read more books like it. And I think people like me should read more books like it. Because echo-chambers suck.
1. Sowell's not some charlatan, Johnny-come-lately-to-econ panderer. He's been a Professor at Stanford for the last 40 years. He's well respected in his field, and has written countless books and articles. (Okay. He's an Econ prof. They're probably not countless. They're probably countable, but I'm not about to tally them up.)
2. In my Liberal circles, it has become fashionable to elevate black voices. And there are a litany of black voices modern and classic, politics, literature (Kendi, Coates, Baldwin, Alexander, Wright, Haley, Morrison, Laymon), etc... But I've noticed we've often written off Conservative black voices before even giving them a chance. And look: I get it. I understand what Rep. Pressley was saying when she said,"We don't need more brown faces who don't want to be a brown voice." I agree with the argument that racism is (and should be) a descriptive rather than a pejorative, and that people of color can be and are racist when they perpetuate racist systems and ideologies. Still, the idea that voices-of-color only applies to Liberal voices-of-color is intellectually and academically dishonest.
3. It's a clearly stated, Conservative book - written in good faith. The vast, vast majority of Conservative books I've read have fallen into a number of unsavory categories: vitriolic polemic drivel (Shapiro, Hegseth), weak arguments/and or boring (Murray), old (Bastiat), or claiming to be from the Conservative perspective, but secretly written by a Berkeley Liberal... (I'm looking at you, Hochschild). So even though I disagreed with Sowell several places, his arguments were clear. He wasn't shouting at me to invigorate his base. And he gave me pause to consider a different perspective. In general, most of the Liberal books (especially Econ books) I read are like this - Gang Leader for a Day, Evicted, Nickel and Dimed, Strangers in Their Own Land, The New Jim Crow, etc... I wish more Conservative books were as well. Any goodreader out there that wants to point me in the right direction, feel free. Also, I recognize that a lot of Econ books aren't really Conservative or Liberal. (Gang Leader for a Day, I listed as Liberal, but I'm not sure it is. Or Factfulness. I'm putting that on the Conservative side, but is it?)
The key premise of the book is that we're quick to jump to conclusions - often based on outcomes. There are disparities all over the place. Do those disparities automatically equate to racism or sexism or any other litany of factors? Maybe. But Sowell's contention is that we're too quick ascribe racist motives when there are many, many other explanations. (Though he points out that racism may be a factor.) Or even when racism is a factor (or may be a factor) are there other economic considerations at play?
Consider redlining. This short video from NPR should bring you up to speed. It's a problem. De jure or de facto, it's a problem. Cities were designed this way, and even as we've progressed as a society, injustices have persisted because they were created to exist in the plat map.
But Sowell points out that many of these anti-redlining white liberals who would "never walk through a particular neighborhood at night, or perhaps not even in broad daylight, may nevertheless be indignant at banks that engage in "redlining" - that is, putting a whole neighborhood off limits as a place to invest their depositors' money. The observers' own "redlining" in their choices of where to walk may never be seen by them as a different example of the same principle." (p. 31) Point, Sowell.
Granted, I'm not the one who drew up the city. And drawing up the original lines seems particularly racist and unjust. But should I blame banks for doing today what most sensibly-self-preserving people would do today?
Throughout the book, Sowell had many such points on a variety of interrelated topics. The Left confuses tax rates and tax revenues - so that when we lower tax rates, and tax revenues go up, that's not really tax break for the rich. They're paying more and making more than when their wealth is tied up in off-shore accounts neither making them money nor being taxed.
"Nothing is easier to find than sins among human beings, but to automatically make those sins the sole, or even primary, cause of different outcomes among different peoples is to ignore many other reasons for those disparities." -p. 18 BUT right from pages one and two: "When there is some endeavor with five prerequisites for success, then by definition the chances of success in that endeavor depend on having all five of those prerequisites simultaneously... Only those with all five of those prerequisites succeed."
His point here is both very good, but also seems to argue against itself. We shouldn't jump straight to racism - especially when disparities can be explained multiple different ways. But when all 5 prerequisites are necessary, and the one that is missing is not actually a prerequisite, but just melanin... You see what I'm saying? He's saying just one thing is enough to keep someone or a segment locked out. It could be birth order, poverty, family upbringing, how much they were read to as a child, etc... But it could be race.
It would take too long to go through all his good points - or bring up the dozens of questions and counterpoints. Rather than that, here's a sampling:
Is it fair to judge Cuban immigrants (wet feet, dry feet) the way we judge other immigrants?
Why all the Iraqi refugees? (specifically 204)
Sowell is judging US schools and standardized test scores against nations that don't test every student.
Sowell's points on Orwell and sports are quite backward. He's pulling from Orwell's essay, "The English People," but definitely check out his, "The Sporting Spirit." He quotes Orwell, "...In sports competition, British competitors were renowned for their sportsmanship," but Orwell - who he quoted earlier extolling the politeness and later on the "law-abiding behavior" of the British, says, "sporting competitions lead to orgies of hatred" and that sport is, "an unfailing cause of ill-will." For Sowell to be saying that things were so much better and more polite in the past... Ecclesiastes 7:10. Come on. (Also, Orwell was a Socialist. Just saying.)
On page 188 Sowell discusses Merit vs. Productivity. He states, "Judging merit in the sense of moral worth that we could credit or blame an individual for, if we knew and understood all the myriad of factors impinging on that particular individual's life, seems beyond the realm of human knowledge." I'm with him, but if I have two girls try out for the volleyball team. One's a little better than the other, but has had private lessons for 7 years, I'm probably taking the worse girl - based on merit. Maybe you're saying, dear reader, that I'm still taking based on productivity - that I believe ultimately that her productivity will be greater in the long run, but I'm basing the initial cut on merit. And of course, who's to say it's the right choice. Maybe that other girl has parents who will keep pushing her, and keep driving her to those private lessons and practices, whereas this other girl will become academically ineligible within three weeks? I don't know. I think it's a discussion worth having, though.
In an era of group-identity politics, various group spokesmen, activists or "leaders" may be preoccupied with languages as badges of cultural identity, but cultures exist to serve human beings. Human beings do not exist to preserve cultures, or to preserve socially isolated constituency for the benefit of "leaders." Why create or perpetuate cultural handicaps for minority youngsters in today's America that were inescapable handicaps for minority youngsters in many other countries in earlier times with fewer and narrower options. -p. 194 ...While I hear what Sowell is saying here, and am adamant that my students learn English... that's the kind of thinking that gave us Iowa's county map, and the reason I'm opposed to the metric system. (Kindof.)
And really, I think I completely disagree with the concluding page of the book. "Nothing that Germans can do today will in any way mitigate the staggering evils of what Hitler did in the past. Nor can apologies in America today for slavery in the past have any meaning, much less do any good, for either blacks or whites today." ...I mean, one of us - either Sowell, or myself - does not understand how forgiveness works. ...Even to the third and fourth generation.
So, I had my problems with the book: sure. Why then, five stars? I think it was good for me to read, and I want to read more books like it. And I think people like me should read more books like it. Because echo-chambers suck.
July 31, 2022
I found myself having very mixed feelings about this book.
On the one hand it's Sowell's usual very thoughtful and detailed take-down of liberal arguments on a variety of topics. He is exacting and rigorous in his examples and effective in showing why they make no sense (e.g. his discussion of different rates of police speeding tickets on highways benchmarked against cameras that tracked differences in the likelihood of speeding against different groups was a critique I hadn't considered before, and felt like an idiot for not having done so.) And his overarching points about how the underlying assumption about equality being the natural state, and the combination of conditions being necessary for success (or lack thereof) were incredibly well made and did in fact seem like they should be the starting point of all conversations on the topic. This felt like a fairly thorough takedown of about 60% of what I often hear/read on this topic.
That said, as is becoming more true with Sowell I find myself a bit lost at the end. Not being an authority in the field myself, the degree of critique he levels leaves me feeling like a spectator in a heated argument between academics. Are the examples he picks out actually representative of the (smart versions of) the other side or are they cherry-picked to make it seem weak? Is there a counterargument that's being ignored which I'm missing here or is this really the degree of final word he presents it as? Is there truly no liberal position that treats facts as rigorously as he does? I struggle to believe this. In a few cases I even outright don't believe it (though this was more in his economics book, where his argument on monopolies just felt incomplete), but in this area I'm more often just too ignorant to know.
This is of course one reason that I get more value out of the broader sweeping aspects of his argument than the examples. In them I can get the core critiques he levels at the liberal argument and I can use those as mental benchmarks to measure other views against; are they starting with the assumption that the world, free of unfair influence, would be fair or manifest in equality? If so then they're building on groundless foundations. These views are useful. And again, this accounts for probably 60+% of the arguments I see on this topic, maybe more.
That said, the remaining percentage is still unclear. The argument in The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness seemed to me to begin after the critiques of Sowell here for example, and the elements that discussed disparities in the leeway white and black teenagers get for small violations, and the cumulative effects of those disparities, I found quite convincing. Even if Sowell's highway speeding example applies here (i.e. black community crime rates are higher), a disparity in how they're handled subsequently would greatly exacerbate inequity regardless of where it began. There is an inherent unfairness in that which is not predicated on equality in the pure state.
I'm also still hoping one or two of the other economic books I'm reading will dig more into some of the economic aspects a bit more; I'm still too early in them to see if they counter here.
This topic is so important though that I noted some of the examples Sowell mentioned here and if I ever have time hope to dig into the studies and science myself; I'm starting to think that doing that on a handful of topics at least is the only way I'll know who I think is being reasonable in this debate; Sowell makes such extreme statements about the lack of reality on the other side one is forced to somewhat of a choice.
I will add too, some of this book seemed a repeat of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy. Those parts were of course very few (much smaller book after all) and were picked to be more relevant to this topic, but they also felt a bit like superfluous filler which would have better been left in the other book and merely referenced from here.
The end result was a book I found value on a deeply important topic, but one which didn't help me actually reach a conclusion yet; only open more questions.
On the one hand it's Sowell's usual very thoughtful and detailed take-down of liberal arguments on a variety of topics. He is exacting and rigorous in his examples and effective in showing why they make no sense (e.g. his discussion of different rates of police speeding tickets on highways benchmarked against cameras that tracked differences in the likelihood of speeding against different groups was a critique I hadn't considered before, and felt like an idiot for not having done so.) And his overarching points about how the underlying assumption about equality being the natural state, and the combination of conditions being necessary for success (or lack thereof) were incredibly well made and did in fact seem like they should be the starting point of all conversations on the topic. This felt like a fairly thorough takedown of about 60% of what I often hear/read on this topic.
That said, as is becoming more true with Sowell I find myself a bit lost at the end. Not being an authority in the field myself, the degree of critique he levels leaves me feeling like a spectator in a heated argument between academics. Are the examples he picks out actually representative of the (smart versions of) the other side or are they cherry-picked to make it seem weak? Is there a counterargument that's being ignored which I'm missing here or is this really the degree of final word he presents it as? Is there truly no liberal position that treats facts as rigorously as he does? I struggle to believe this. In a few cases I even outright don't believe it (though this was more in his economics book, where his argument on monopolies just felt incomplete), but in this area I'm more often just too ignorant to know.
This is of course one reason that I get more value out of the broader sweeping aspects of his argument than the examples. In them I can get the core critiques he levels at the liberal argument and I can use those as mental benchmarks to measure other views against; are they starting with the assumption that the world, free of unfair influence, would be fair or manifest in equality? If so then they're building on groundless foundations. These views are useful. And again, this accounts for probably 60+% of the arguments I see on this topic, maybe more.
That said, the remaining percentage is still unclear. The argument in The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness seemed to me to begin after the critiques of Sowell here for example, and the elements that discussed disparities in the leeway white and black teenagers get for small violations, and the cumulative effects of those disparities, I found quite convincing. Even if Sowell's highway speeding example applies here (i.e. black community crime rates are higher), a disparity in how they're handled subsequently would greatly exacerbate inequity regardless of where it began. There is an inherent unfairness in that which is not predicated on equality in the pure state.
I'm also still hoping one or two of the other economic books I'm reading will dig more into some of the economic aspects a bit more; I'm still too early in them to see if they counter here.
This topic is so important though that I noted some of the examples Sowell mentioned here and if I ever have time hope to dig into the studies and science myself; I'm starting to think that doing that on a handful of topics at least is the only way I'll know who I think is being reasonable in this debate; Sowell makes such extreme statements about the lack of reality on the other side one is forced to somewhat of a choice.
I will add too, some of this book seemed a repeat of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy. Those parts were of course very few (much smaller book after all) and were picked to be more relevant to this topic, but they also felt a bit like superfluous filler which would have better been left in the other book and merely referenced from here.
The end result was a book I found value on a deeply important topic, but one which didn't help me actually reach a conclusion yet; only open more questions.
November 10, 2019
From the preface to the book:
"The goal of Discrimination and Disparities will be met if it can provide clarification on some major social issues that are too often mired in dogmas and obfuscations. Individuals can then decide what policies suit their own values and goals. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said: 'You are entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.'"
This is a brilliant book by one of the preeminent economists and scholars of our times. It is a must read for anyone grappling with the current state of our political and social situation.
"The goal of Discrimination and Disparities will be met if it can provide clarification on some major social issues that are too often mired in dogmas and obfuscations. Individuals can then decide what policies suit their own values and goals. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said: 'You are entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.'"
This is a brilliant book by one of the preeminent economists and scholars of our times. It is a must read for anyone grappling with the current state of our political and social situation.
May 21, 2018
Thomas Sowell challenges the basic assumption that equal outcomes between groups would be the norm in society in the absence of discrimination. He illustrates the way figures propagate errors by omitting certain variables or committing certain fallacies so as to support a particular vision of society. The big takeaway for me was that public intellectuals are reductionistic, either intentionally or unintentionally, in their advocacy for causes. The result of this is that a distorted view of reality is perpetuated within the society as a whole leading to solutions that tend to make the lives of individuals worse off.
September 7, 2020
I would not recommend this book.
July 19, 2020
My feelings about this book can be summed up in two sentences:
1) Yes, discrimination is not the sole cause behind disparity (as current "social vision" might suggest) and it's important to understand data, but the impact of discrimination is not zero.
2) Yes, accurate interpretation of statistics and other empirical evidence is incredibly important in building society and policy; however, the way people feel about and the way people perceive society is not unimportant.
One of the most important takeaways from this book is the "invincible fallacy" that social groups will have equal, or at least similar, outcomes in the absence of biased treatment or genetic differences in ability. I think it's an important concept that he uses, in conjunction with data, to discuss the importance of the quality and quantity of parenting, the consequences of minimum wage laws, the natural tendency of groups to self-sort, the danger of generalizing statistics about income brackets, and the need to define what equality actually means, among many other concepts and social factors.
However, there were some things I did disagree with.
His idea of Discrimination IB, to me is still discrimination, hard stop. If you don't hire a man or woman because the opposite sex will "be distracted", that's discrimination, not "using empirical evidence". If male lumberjacks aren't as productive because they're distracted by a female lumberjack, punish or fire the male lumberjacks and find someone that can do their job. If you hire someone from a group that's 30% alcoholics and you, as a manager, allow your employee to not only continue to make defective products, but also allow defective products out the door to the point where the customer is paying the price, that says more about you as a manager than it says about "Group X". If you hire someone who's sober at an interview but then their alcoholism starts impacting their job...fire them. Then you avoid discrimination and are able to treat someone based on their productivity.
I found it ironic, in a section about statistical errors of omission, how some relevant statistics were left out. The example of speeding arrests vs. speeding caught with cameras and radar guns, as well as the relevance of median age, seemed sound. The argument about household income vs. individual income and disparity in income between people vs. disparity in income brackets was also solid. Also agreed that the distinction between salary and capital gains is important. But the homicide statistics?
Relevant data that's missing: percentage of solved vs unsolved black homicides, percentage of solved vs unsolved white homicides, percentage of arrests that were convicted, percentage of convictions that were overturned, etc. When the point he's trying to prove is that statistics need context and statistics can be easily manipulated, this seems negligent and sloppy.
What's left out of this is the fact that many companies provide more maternity leave than paternity leave, if paternity leave is offered at all, which forces the burden of "taking time out" on the woman. Also left out of the discussion is the fact that most women need to pump periodically and not every job is flexible enough to allow that, forcing women to take longer leave. Yes, there may be reasons beyond pure sexism for the discrepancies in income, but we shouldn't be using that as a way to justify the discrepancy. We should be addressing those reasons: maternity and paternity leave offered by companies, affordable child care, flexible work arrangements. If the intention is not sexist, but the IMPACT is, then sexism is at play.
I'm not sure calling diversity a "fragmented society of people polarized into separate group identities" is accurate. Going from Balkanization to diversity is quite the leap. Debating the pros and cons of diversity has merit on its own and doesn't need an alarmist tie to Ottoman empire atrocities in order to find fault with the idea of diversity and what the word means. It seems he's implying the word "diversity" is what's promoting separate group identities, when he spent the entirety of Chapter 3 claiming that people with similar group identities will self-sort. Arguably, separation into group identities is both innate and reinforced by culture and society, and not just in America (as proven by the data provided to support the self-sorting hypothesis). Group identities exist and will be self-imposed whether or not there's a word for it. Diversity is the idea that exposure to other group identities has the ABILITY to (not that it absolutely WILL) open your mind to new thoughts and ideas, rather than surrounding yourself with people who share and reinforce only your views. Diversity isn't the ACT of separating into groups, it's an idea to build empathy between those pre-existing group identities.
It feels like his argument is as follows: if you can acculturate yourself to a "dominant" culture, then it's ok, but if you're super different and have different ideas and make people uncomfortable, separate yourselves and isolate yourselves and don't even bother trying to find a middle ground or a way to understand one another because there's no point. Which is, frankly, ridiculous. He builds a hyperbolic dichotomy: risk war when "diversity" is "forced" or peacefully isolate disagreeing groups from one another. It's not that black and white, there are many other options in the gray area. Obviously, working in the gray area is not always practical and not very straightforward and, true, empathy is difficult and messy, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile. Co-existing also doesn't mean needing to have the same values, ideals, cultures, etc (or co-existing doesn't necessarily mean you need to "fully" acculturate). That makes it easier, obviously, but you can also make the choice to try to empathize and respect people who have different "castes, religions, languages and cultures" than you.
This is fairly exaggerated rhetoric. I'm not quite sure children are being taught to feel guilty. There's a very large difference between shaming children versus asking them to be aware of and empathetic to those who are different from them.
Yet again, this underplays the psychological impact. There are consequences to stereotypes, for both the "successful ethnic groups" and the "unsuccessful ones". And not just for politicians and reinforcing a social vision, but on an individual basis. Being repeatedly told by society what you are most likely to become based on statistics involving your group identity (whether race, sex, gender, etc) can be incredibly damaging and can create self-fulfilling prophecies. That is an extra burden that must be overcome. The statistics may exist, but that doesn't justify perpetuating the stigma moving forward
The "trickle-down" theory argument (no one has actually used those words) made me do a lot of googling. While I agree that word choice and the use of words is powerful and important, this particular nitpicking feels like overkill. The origination of the TERM "trickle-down" may have come from a humorist and social commentator, but the CONTENT of the theory itself is still relevant and something advocated for by politicians and economists
I think it's important to decouple welfare from the entirety of the social vision "du jour". Tying the perceived degeneration and retrogression of society nearly entirely to the "social vision" does an injustice to some of the good that's come from that social vision (i.e. the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act). There are a lot of factors in today's "social vision" that deserve to be looked at with a critical eye, but it's rash to dismiss it entirely.
Eight states and DC require all high schools to offer AP courses; 14 other states require all high schools to offer advanced courses - this can absolutely be expanded country-wide, but I don't think nearly 50% of the states having these types of requirements equates to "fierce opposition"
1) Yes, discrimination is not the sole cause behind disparity (as current "social vision" might suggest) and it's important to understand data, but the impact of discrimination is not zero.
2) Yes, accurate interpretation of statistics and other empirical evidence is incredibly important in building society and policy; however, the way people feel about and the way people perceive society is not unimportant.
One of the most important takeaways from this book is the "invincible fallacy" that social groups will have equal, or at least similar, outcomes in the absence of biased treatment or genetic differences in ability. I think it's an important concept that he uses, in conjunction with data, to discuss the importance of the quality and quantity of parenting, the consequences of minimum wage laws, the natural tendency of groups to self-sort, the danger of generalizing statistics about income brackets, and the need to define what equality actually means, among many other concepts and social factors.
However, there were some things I did disagree with.
His idea of Discrimination IB, to me is still discrimination, hard stop. If you don't hire a man or woman because the opposite sex will "be distracted", that's discrimination, not "using empirical evidence". If male lumberjacks aren't as productive because they're distracted by a female lumberjack, punish or fire the male lumberjacks and find someone that can do their job. If you hire someone from a group that's 30% alcoholics and you, as a manager, allow your employee to not only continue to make defective products, but also allow defective products out the door to the point where the customer is paying the price, that says more about you as a manager than it says about "Group X". If you hire someone who's sober at an interview but then their alcoholism starts impacting their job...fire them. Then you avoid discrimination and are able to treat someone based on their productivity.
I found it ironic, in a section about statistical errors of omission, how some relevant statistics were left out. The example of speeding arrests vs. speeding caught with cameras and radar guns, as well as the relevance of median age, seemed sound. The argument about household income vs. individual income and disparity in income between people vs. disparity in income brackets was also solid. Also agreed that the distinction between salary and capital gains is important. But the homicide statistics?
"...the vast majority of those [black] homicide victims whose killers have been identified were killed by other blacks, just as most white homicide victims were killed by other whites"
Relevant data that's missing: percentage of solved vs unsolved black homicides, percentage of solved vs unsolved white homicides, percentage of arrests that were convicted, percentage of convictions that were overturned, etc. When the point he's trying to prove is that statistics need context and statistics can be easily manipulated, this seems negligent and sloppy.
"But when a higher proportion of women are part-time workers, and they are workers with fewer years of continuous employment experience (due to taking time out to care for small children)...comparisons of women and men with the 'same' qualifications in gross terms are comparisons of apples and oranges"
What's left out of this is the fact that many companies provide more maternity leave than paternity leave, if paternity leave is offered at all, which forces the burden of "taking time out" on the woman. Also left out of the discussion is the fact that most women need to pump periodically and not every job is flexible enough to allow that, forcing women to take longer leave. Yes, there may be reasons beyond pure sexism for the discrepancies in income, but we shouldn't be using that as a way to justify the discrepancy. We should be addressing those reasons: maternity and paternity leave offered by companies, affordable child care, flexible work arrangements. If the intention is not sexist, but the IMPACT is, then sexism is at play.
I'm not sure calling diversity a "fragmented society of people polarized into separate group identities" is accurate. Going from Balkanization to diversity is quite the leap. Debating the pros and cons of diversity has merit on its own and doesn't need an alarmist tie to Ottoman empire atrocities in order to find fault with the idea of diversity and what the word means. It seems he's implying the word "diversity" is what's promoting separate group identities, when he spent the entirety of Chapter 3 claiming that people with similar group identities will self-sort. Arguably, separation into group identities is both innate and reinforced by culture and society, and not just in America (as proven by the data provided to support the self-sorting hypothesis). Group identities exist and will be self-imposed whether or not there's a word for it. Diversity is the idea that exposure to other group identities has the ABILITY to (not that it absolutely WILL) open your mind to new thoughts and ideas, rather than surrounding yourself with people who share and reinforce only your views. Diversity isn't the ACT of separating into groups, it's an idea to build empathy between those pre-existing group identities.
It feels like his argument is as follows: if you can acculturate yourself to a "dominant" culture, then it's ok, but if you're super different and have different ideas and make people uncomfortable, separate yourselves and isolate yourselves and don't even bother trying to find a middle ground or a way to understand one another because there's no point. Which is, frankly, ridiculous. He builds a hyperbolic dichotomy: risk war when "diversity" is "forced" or peacefully isolate disagreeing groups from one another. It's not that black and white, there are many other options in the gray area. Obviously, working in the gray area is not always practical and not very straightforward and, true, empathy is difficult and messy, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile. Co-existing also doesn't mean needing to have the same values, ideals, cultures, etc (or co-existing doesn't necessarily mean you need to "fully" acculturate). That makes it easier, obviously, but you can also make the choice to try to empathize and respect people who have different "castes, religions, languages and cultures" than you.
"Children who are currently being raised with the kinds of values...that are likely to make them valuable contributors to society...are called "privileged" and are taught in schools to feel guilty"
This is fairly exaggerated rhetoric. I'm not quite sure children are being taught to feel guilty. There's a very large difference between shaming children versus asking them to be aware of and empathetic to those who are different from them.
"Stigmatizing the making of comparisons between successful ethnic groups and unsuccessful ones as manifestations of implicit racism"
Yet again, this underplays the psychological impact. There are consequences to stereotypes, for both the "successful ethnic groups" and the "unsuccessful ones". And not just for politicians and reinforcing a social vision, but on an individual basis. Being repeatedly told by society what you are most likely to become based on statistics involving your group identity (whether race, sex, gender, etc) can be incredibly damaging and can create self-fulfilling prophecies. That is an extra burden that must be overcome. The statistics may exist, but that doesn't justify perpetuating the stigma moving forward
The "trickle-down" theory argument (no one has actually used those words) made me do a lot of googling. While I agree that word choice and the use of words is powerful and important, this particular nitpicking feels like overkill. The origination of the TERM "trickle-down" may have come from a humorist and social commentator, but the CONTENT of the theory itself is still relevant and something advocated for by politicians and economists
I think it's important to decouple welfare from the entirety of the social vision "du jour". Tying the perceived degeneration and retrogression of society nearly entirely to the "social vision" does an injustice to some of the good that's come from that social vision (i.e. the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act). There are a lot of factors in today's "social vision" that deserve to be looked at with a critical eye, but it's rash to dismiss it entirely.
"Our education system...fiercely oppos[es] differing levels and kinds of education for those individuals whose demonstrated capabilities exceed the demonstrated capabilities of others"
Eight states and DC require all high schools to offer AP courses; 14 other states require all high schools to offer advanced courses - this can absolutely be expanded country-wide, but I don't think nearly 50% of the states having these types of requirements equates to "fierce opposition"
March 25, 2020
His logic, reasoning, economic actuary skills, and writing are 5 star level. As is his common sense. Others have said it better in their reviews. Read the 5 star descriptions and equivalencies. All are accurate that I have read here. Thomas Sowell is a treasure and a genius. I hope he is with us for some time yet.
April 4, 2018
Empirical evidence debunks emotional assertions
Sowell has done it again! His scholarship and insistence on hard-evidence debunks the mythology of the Progressives and Postmodernists. Unfortunately those who would gain the most from this book will never read it.
Sowell has done it again! His scholarship and insistence on hard-evidence debunks the mythology of the Progressives and Postmodernists. Unfortunately those who would gain the most from this book will never read it.
December 16, 2021
Unfortunately, I listened to this book while going through an incredibly stressful emotional time. I’m sure that I missed not only some of the finer points of his arguments but possibly some larger ones as well. Still, I did learn some new facts and gained a greater understanding of the economic complexities that defy soundbite policies and slogan solutions. Some of these principles are fairly intuitive, but the way he explains them and supports them from history and statistics really clarifies them.
What really stood out to me was the complexity, almost immeasurably complex, of things that are so often presented as simple, such as income classification. It really reminded me that simple answers are not always helpful and despite their intentions can cause long-lasting harm.
All of it was really good. I can’t recommend it enough. It will be beneficial to every reader, liberal or conservative.
What really stood out to me was the complexity, almost immeasurably complex, of things that are so often presented as simple, such as income classification. It really reminded me that simple answers are not always helpful and despite their intentions can cause long-lasting harm.
All of it was really good. I can’t recommend it enough. It will be beneficial to every reader, liberal or conservative.
July 6, 2020
Recently, in a discussion regarding my review for So You Want To Talk About Race, someone made the following comment:
"This is as much as to note the obvious fact that white people remain quite dominant in nearly every social respect. What answer to this is there other than racism?"
This wishfully simplistic thinking, and gross misunderstanding of statistics is standing in the way of much-needed, solution-focused conversations about racism, sexism and inequality. If a large group of people cannot (or will not) handle multivariate analysis for complex problems, we will be unable to solve them. To use a well-known analogy: we need to start distributing different tools to the hammer-wielding people, before they will treat everything as if it's a nail.
Enter Thomas Sowell. In his short book 'Discrimination and Disparities' the economist educates the reader on the topic of unequal outcomes. Like any serious thinker worth their salt, he begins with laying out a framework of what we mean when we talk about 'discrimination' and 'disparities'.
Deciphering Disparities
When we see different groups of people chasing the same goal with vastly different outcomes, our intuition may be to suspect some kind of foul play. After all, isn't it the natural state of the universe that things are distributed equally? The author dispels this notion, and shows that throughout both human societies and nature the norm is actually that of unequal distribution. Even though the United States does not cover most of Earth's surface, more than 90 percent of all tornadoes occur in it. A small number of trees in the rain forest absorb most of the sunlight. A handful of professional golfers have won more PGA tournaments than thousands of other pro golfers combined. There are enough examples to make you wonder if claiming 'sexism' for the so-called wage gap makes more sense than it does for blaming the amount of lightning in Africa on racism.
Sowell wonderfully avoids two pitfalls when explaining oft-discussed disparities: he doesn't fall back on the 'natural fallacy', in claiming that inequality is good because it is natural, and he never claims that discrimination is not a factor in society. He simply demonstrates that it shouldn't be our default conclusion without a testable hypothesis:
"Disparities do not imply discrimination. Nor is discrimination automatically excluded. It is one of many possibilities, each of which has to establish its claims with evidence, rather than being an automatic presumption"
This illustrates the main takeaway of 'Discrimination and Disparities': claims of any kind of '-ism' shouldn't be taken at face value, but thoroughly researched and proven. Not only does Sowell show that always multiple factors play a role in explaining disparities, he even successfully shows that discrimination - counter-intuitively - is often not a determinant at all. But before we can accept this conclusion, we have to take a closer look at what we mean with 'discrimination'.
Defining Discrimination
One of my biggest problems with works like 'So You Want To Talk About Race' is the lack of clear definitions of terms like 'microaggressions' or 'racism'. It's simply impractical and arguably dangerous to classify behavior like A) calling someone the N-word, B) saying "that's so ghetto" to a black co-worker and C) someone on the street giving you an awkward eye, as the same thing.
For the purpose of clarity, Sowell provides different definitions of 'discrimination'. It certainly makes for a more readable book, and prevents the reader from misinterpreting the author's carefully chosen words. Sowell introduces three possible categories of discrimination:
1a: Judging people as individuals.
1b: Judging people based on knowledge of their group identity.
2: Judging people based on assumptions and prejudice of their group identity.
While we should all strive to only use discrimination 1a, it's sometimes unavoidable to resort to discrimination 1b, while discrimination 2 should be avoided. Sowell gives the following example:
There are two groups: X and Y. 40 percent of people group X are alcoholics, and 1 percent of people in group Y are alcoholics. In a situation where alcoholism is dangerous during work hours, and an employer cannot determine beforehand which applicants have an alcohol problem, he might use discrimination 1b. This is certainly less than ideal, but sometimes unavoidable in reality. Let's take the following example from real life:
We can have a sensible discussion around the subject, but the fact is that young black males in the United States are more likely to have criminal records. Some social justice activists, hoping to improve job outlooks for young black males, have called for the prohibition of background checks, which is a form of discrimination 1a. What this prohibition results in, however, is employers actually hiring LESS young black males. Since they cannot perform a background check, they resort back to discrimination 1b, where they make a cost / risk analysis based on their knowledge of a group.
Meanwhile, companies that are allowed to perform background checks, demonstrably hire MORE young, black males than other companies. This illustration of different kinds of discrimination is also a useful demonstration of how good intentions don't necessarily equal good outcomes.
Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes
What happens when delinquent teens are placed in groups of comparatively civilized peers, in the hopes that good behavior will rub off on them? If you've guessed that this wonderful-sounding experiment would benefit everyone, think again. Regardless of the good intentions of social workers involved, the opposite happens; the well-behaved kids are pulled down by the delinquent ones.
After Sowell demonstrates that disparities exist everywhere, and discrimination is not the de facto standard explanation, one could still argue that our good intentions of ending inequality justify a somewhat skewed approach. Isn't the goal ultimately what matters most?
As the examples of background checks and delinquent children show, unfortunately compassion alone is not enough to guarantee good outcomes. Often, as the author shows, the reverse even happens and inequality increases. Increasing the minimum wage sounds like a good idea to fight income inequality, but often results in workers fired or having less hours of work available, and thus less income. Decreasing the tax rate from 73 percent to 24 percent sounds like a surefire way for the government to generate less tax revenue, yet in the 1920's it caused tax revenue to increase dramatically. Using several real-life cases, Sowell makes a solid argument against relying on (hypothetically) good intentions when striving for any sort of progress, especially on a larger scale. As the author states; there is a difference between 'words on paper' and 'events in the real world'.
Words on Paper
In an increasingly politicized world, it can be hard to look beyond the words on a website or in a newspaper, and understand what is going on in the real world. There is an infinite number of facts, and depending on which are presented in what way, they can fit almost any narrative. Besides dismantling the 'disparities equal discrimination'-narrative, Sowell clearly explains many oft-used statistics and terms, to show the reader what they mean in real life.
One of the examples that stuck with me most is the disparity between households. When comparing the bottom and top earning households, what is rarely discussed is the number of people in these households. Knowing this, does it seem reasonable to compare the income of 69 million people to that of 40 million people, even though they both make up an equal number of households? Even the most determined social justice activist should acknowledge that we ought to compare apples to apples. Another illustration:
Two young people live together in one household, since they cannot afford their own apartment yet. Both people make 20.000 dollars per year. They both get promoted at work, now make 30.000 dollars per year, and decide to rent their own place. In the real world, things got better for two people. On paper, one 40K household was replaced with two 30K households, and average household income decreased.
There are countless ways that data can be misused to tell different stories on paper. What 'Discrimination and Disparities' perhaps does best, is demonstrating its reader the need for economic and data literacy. If we rely on politicians, the media or activists to tell us what is happening in the real world, we'll likely end up with either falsehoods or simply words on paper.
Conclusion
'Discrimination and Disparities' is a book especially necessary in the current culture. It dispels several popular social justice notions, particularly those of 'disparities equal discrimination' and 'good intentions result in good outcomes'. Although it's a short book, it's clear-cut and easily readable. What it lacks perhaps are solutions to some of the problems discussed, but that would also result in an unnecessarily complicated and extensive book. Even though this is the best time in history to be alive, there are still plenty of problems that need to be fixed. 'Discrimination and Disparities' is a great tool for anybody who wants to identify and fix real problems, instead of imagining problems or making them worse.
"This is as much as to note the obvious fact that white people remain quite dominant in nearly every social respect. What answer to this is there other than racism?"
This wishfully simplistic thinking, and gross misunderstanding of statistics is standing in the way of much-needed, solution-focused conversations about racism, sexism and inequality. If a large group of people cannot (or will not) handle multivariate analysis for complex problems, we will be unable to solve them. To use a well-known analogy: we need to start distributing different tools to the hammer-wielding people, before they will treat everything as if it's a nail.
Enter Thomas Sowell. In his short book 'Discrimination and Disparities' the economist educates the reader on the topic of unequal outcomes. Like any serious thinker worth their salt, he begins with laying out a framework of what we mean when we talk about 'discrimination' and 'disparities'.
Deciphering Disparities
When we see different groups of people chasing the same goal with vastly different outcomes, our intuition may be to suspect some kind of foul play. After all, isn't it the natural state of the universe that things are distributed equally? The author dispels this notion, and shows that throughout both human societies and nature the norm is actually that of unequal distribution. Even though the United States does not cover most of Earth's surface, more than 90 percent of all tornadoes occur in it. A small number of trees in the rain forest absorb most of the sunlight. A handful of professional golfers have won more PGA tournaments than thousands of other pro golfers combined. There are enough examples to make you wonder if claiming 'sexism' for the so-called wage gap makes more sense than it does for blaming the amount of lightning in Africa on racism.
Sowell wonderfully avoids two pitfalls when explaining oft-discussed disparities: he doesn't fall back on the 'natural fallacy', in claiming that inequality is good because it is natural, and he never claims that discrimination is not a factor in society. He simply demonstrates that it shouldn't be our default conclusion without a testable hypothesis:
"Disparities do not imply discrimination. Nor is discrimination automatically excluded. It is one of many possibilities, each of which has to establish its claims with evidence, rather than being an automatic presumption"
This illustrates the main takeaway of 'Discrimination and Disparities': claims of any kind of '-ism' shouldn't be taken at face value, but thoroughly researched and proven. Not only does Sowell show that always multiple factors play a role in explaining disparities, he even successfully shows that discrimination - counter-intuitively - is often not a determinant at all. But before we can accept this conclusion, we have to take a closer look at what we mean with 'discrimination'.
Defining Discrimination
One of my biggest problems with works like 'So You Want To Talk About Race' is the lack of clear definitions of terms like 'microaggressions' or 'racism'. It's simply impractical and arguably dangerous to classify behavior like A) calling someone the N-word, B) saying "that's so ghetto" to a black co-worker and C) someone on the street giving you an awkward eye, as the same thing.
For the purpose of clarity, Sowell provides different definitions of 'discrimination'. It certainly makes for a more readable book, and prevents the reader from misinterpreting the author's carefully chosen words. Sowell introduces three possible categories of discrimination:
1a: Judging people as individuals.
1b: Judging people based on knowledge of their group identity.
2: Judging people based on assumptions and prejudice of their group identity.
While we should all strive to only use discrimination 1a, it's sometimes unavoidable to resort to discrimination 1b, while discrimination 2 should be avoided. Sowell gives the following example:
There are two groups: X and Y. 40 percent of people group X are alcoholics, and 1 percent of people in group Y are alcoholics. In a situation where alcoholism is dangerous during work hours, and an employer cannot determine beforehand which applicants have an alcohol problem, he might use discrimination 1b. This is certainly less than ideal, but sometimes unavoidable in reality. Let's take the following example from real life:
We can have a sensible discussion around the subject, but the fact is that young black males in the United States are more likely to have criminal records. Some social justice activists, hoping to improve job outlooks for young black males, have called for the prohibition of background checks, which is a form of discrimination 1a. What this prohibition results in, however, is employers actually hiring LESS young black males. Since they cannot perform a background check, they resort back to discrimination 1b, where they make a cost / risk analysis based on their knowledge of a group.
Meanwhile, companies that are allowed to perform background checks, demonstrably hire MORE young, black males than other companies. This illustration of different kinds of discrimination is also a useful demonstration of how good intentions don't necessarily equal good outcomes.
Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes
What happens when delinquent teens are placed in groups of comparatively civilized peers, in the hopes that good behavior will rub off on them? If you've guessed that this wonderful-sounding experiment would benefit everyone, think again. Regardless of the good intentions of social workers involved, the opposite happens; the well-behaved kids are pulled down by the delinquent ones.
After Sowell demonstrates that disparities exist everywhere, and discrimination is not the de facto standard explanation, one could still argue that our good intentions of ending inequality justify a somewhat skewed approach. Isn't the goal ultimately what matters most?
As the examples of background checks and delinquent children show, unfortunately compassion alone is not enough to guarantee good outcomes. Often, as the author shows, the reverse even happens and inequality increases. Increasing the minimum wage sounds like a good idea to fight income inequality, but often results in workers fired or having less hours of work available, and thus less income. Decreasing the tax rate from 73 percent to 24 percent sounds like a surefire way for the government to generate less tax revenue, yet in the 1920's it caused tax revenue to increase dramatically. Using several real-life cases, Sowell makes a solid argument against relying on (hypothetically) good intentions when striving for any sort of progress, especially on a larger scale. As the author states; there is a difference between 'words on paper' and 'events in the real world'.
Words on Paper
In an increasingly politicized world, it can be hard to look beyond the words on a website or in a newspaper, and understand what is going on in the real world. There is an infinite number of facts, and depending on which are presented in what way, they can fit almost any narrative. Besides dismantling the 'disparities equal discrimination'-narrative, Sowell clearly explains many oft-used statistics and terms, to show the reader what they mean in real life.
One of the examples that stuck with me most is the disparity between households. When comparing the bottom and top earning households, what is rarely discussed is the number of people in these households. Knowing this, does it seem reasonable to compare the income of 69 million people to that of 40 million people, even though they both make up an equal number of households? Even the most determined social justice activist should acknowledge that we ought to compare apples to apples. Another illustration:
Two young people live together in one household, since they cannot afford their own apartment yet. Both people make 20.000 dollars per year. They both get promoted at work, now make 30.000 dollars per year, and decide to rent their own place. In the real world, things got better for two people. On paper, one 40K household was replaced with two 30K households, and average household income decreased.
There are countless ways that data can be misused to tell different stories on paper. What 'Discrimination and Disparities' perhaps does best, is demonstrating its reader the need for economic and data literacy. If we rely on politicians, the media or activists to tell us what is happening in the real world, we'll likely end up with either falsehoods or simply words on paper.
Conclusion
'Discrimination and Disparities' is a book especially necessary in the current culture. It dispels several popular social justice notions, particularly those of 'disparities equal discrimination' and 'good intentions result in good outcomes'. Although it's a short book, it's clear-cut and easily readable. What it lacks perhaps are solutions to some of the problems discussed, but that would also result in an unnecessarily complicated and extensive book. Even though this is the best time in history to be alive, there are still plenty of problems that need to be fixed. 'Discrimination and Disparities' is a great tool for anybody who wants to identify and fix real problems, instead of imagining problems or making them worse.
December 27, 2018
I didn't know Thomas Sowell or his writings when I started listening to this book, so I came into the book without any preconceived ideas. I liked how he made some of his points at the beginning, so I didn't realize until halfway through that he was setting me up for CHARTER SCHOOLS! BLACK HOOLIGANS! MASS MEDIA! THE GHETTO THE GHETTO THE GHETTO! and other talking points that I would have dismissed immediately had I heard a Fox News broadcaster talking about then. I feel like I got bait-and-switched into reading a book well outside my liberal bubble, for which I am both annoyed and a little grateful. It's good for me to read outside of my perspective, and I do I think Sowell is extremely intelligent.But I also think he's looking at every situation as if it can be explained by economics, when sometimes you have to look at human interactions as a sociologist, historian, or linguist. I also think he's so smart that he lands in some logical fallacies and statements of historical fact that are often disputed (for a different take on the Great Migration, for example, see Isabel Wilkerson's stunning The Warmth of Other Suns). He also seems to lean heavy on the argument that the lack of discrimination against Asians in mortgages means that black people aren't discriminated against in mortgages). I kind of lost it when he referred to the Irish potato failure and the almost accidental way the potato crop failed (true) without also talking about the way that centuries of discrimination and British policy caused a tragedy. I did actually start yelling when he said African-American vernacular is why black children have bad test scores, and I was extremely uncomfortable with the way he referred to so many black communities as hooligans and ghettos.
In short, this book has some helpful perspectives, but be a discerning reader. He makes some logical leaps that I don't think he supports, and some points that he doesn't seem to be supporting with the full picture.
In short, this book has some helpful perspectives, but be a discerning reader. He makes some logical leaps that I don't think he supports, and some points that he doesn't seem to be supporting with the full picture.
June 16, 2023
This is not a pool I dip my toes in often. . . .but I'm glad I did. Listening to this work by Thomas Sowell, was a recommendation from a good lawyer friend, when I asked what he was reading right now.
A worthy read, and one I will re-read as I am confident I didn't absorb all that is there. And, just like you never step in the same river twice, I don't think you ever read the same book again - not that the book changes, but the reader, and the world the reader is living in changes every day and every moment in the day. . . .so, I will re-read this again for a deep draw on the observations, questions posed, answers given and ponders suggested.
A worthy read, and one I will re-read as I am confident I didn't absorb all that is there. And, just like you never step in the same river twice, I don't think you ever read the same book again - not that the book changes, but the reader, and the world the reader is living in changes every day and every moment in the day. . . .so, I will re-read this again for a deep draw on the observations, questions posed, answers given and ponders suggested.
November 2, 2020
Thomas Sowell's books typically get reviewed in one of two ways. Commonly the reviewer shouts "Thomas Sowell is a national treasure!" as the totality of his comments. Less often, but still not infrequently, the reviewer gives Sowell low marks for allegedly ignoring data that disproves his points, or for being insensitive to some identified group of people. Both of these approaches are similarly unhelpful, based as they are on a common misconception of Sowell's work.
Over the decades Sowell has acquired a not entirely unearned reputation as a debunker, especially of leftist social and economic views - including, but not limited to, income redistribution and social justice activism. This perception largely guides reception of his work. For those who disagree with liberal ideas, Sowell's intellectual salvos against these points of view is welcome. For those who hold these views, Sowell's critiques are most unwelcome. But the idea of Sowell as a debunker isn't an entirely accurate reading of his books, which have never been about simply debunking this or that particular factual claim or policy recommendation. Rather, they have served the larger and considerably more important purpose of challenging the assumptions that many Americans, on both the right and the left, base their opinions on.
Such is the goal of Discrimination and Disparities. One might ascertain from the book's title that Sowell intends to prove that discrimination is not the cause of disparities in economic and social outcomes. But, in reality, Sowell's point is both more nuanced and multifarious as he challenges two foundational assumptions behind much of modern social discussions: that, absent discrimination, outcomes would be evenly or randomly distributed across individuals and groups, and that disparities automatically imply discrimination, or indeed any single cause.
The idea of even or random distribution of outcomes, Sowell says, ignores not only human history, but nature. Taking the view of successful outcomes as the result of multiple "prerequisites," Sowell notes that a large majority of tornadoes happens in the United States. Although other countries have similar topographies and environment, it is in North America that all the prerequisites for a tornado most commonly come together. This is not a meteorological non sequitur, as Sowell analogizes weather to human outcomes, which also rely on the confluence of several factors. He cites the uneven outcomes for children of the same parents and for people with the same IQs as evidence that having one significant attribute, or even several important attributes, in common does not guarantee the same level of success in human endeavors. As we look at the various differences in outcomes in society as a whole, Sowell asks, "If there is not equality of outcomes among people born to the same parents and raised under the same roof, why should equality of outcomes be expected - or assumed - when conditions are not nearly so compatible?"
Sowell does not, as some reviewers have claimed, ignore the reality of discrimination. He references discrimination and other forms of oppression so frequently that one suspects the person who claims he ignores such realities of either not reading the book, or having read it through ideological blinders. But neither is he willing to simply accept the existence of disparities as evidence of discrimination. Rather, he treats discrimination as one possibility that can confirmed, discounted or placed in its proper proportion to other factors when considered in the light of empirical data. It is here where Sowell comes closest to being a debunker, as he cites statistics and studies that show group disparities as often explainable by factors other than discrimination. For instance, he notes that income differences between ethnic groups should not be surprising when one group has an average age of over forty and the other has an average age in the twenties. Level of education, consistency and length of employment, and culture are all potential factors that Sowell identifies as part of the causes of various types of disparities, which are unlikely to be the result of any single cause.
Regarding culture, Sowell does not, as other reviewers have said, say that minorities should "just act like white people," which would be odd since he cites social pathologies that limit the success and achievement of the white underclass in both the United States and Britain. Culture is undoubtedly an important factor, Sowell believes, in individual and group results, but he notes that the cultural elements that lead to better outcomes - education, work ethic, civility - are not unique to any specific ethnicity. Ignoring the importance of cultural norms and beliefs, or confining them to a single group, is counterproductive, Sowell believes, especially for what he calls "lagging groups," who in this way are denied the opportunity develop skills and habits that will help them close performance gaps by the very people - liberal intellectuals and activists - who purportedly seek to help them.
Sowell explains, "Despite the inability to confiscate and redistribute human capital, nevertheless human capital is - ironically - one of the few things that can be spread to others without those with it having any less remaining for themselves. But one of the biggest obstacles to this happening is the 'social justice' vision, in which the fundamental problem of the less fortunate is not an absence of sufficient human capital, but the presence of other people's malevolence. For some, abandoning that vision would mean abandoning a moral melodrama, starring themselves as crusaders against the forces of evil. How many are prepared to give up all that - with all its psychic, political and other rewards - is an open question."
The idea of "visions" will be familiar to long-time readers of Sowell, as it goes back at least as far as his 1987 book A Conflict of Visions. Sowell has long been critical of viewing political, economic, and social problems through the lens of visions which are insulated from criticism or empirical analysis, and this is the fundamental problem that Sowell continues to see today. Treating social issues as opportunities to confirm and apply popular dogma is not only counterproductive if our goal is to actually improve the lives of individuals, it is likely to fracture society and generate animosities. This has happened throughout history, all over the world, with the end result not infrequently being violence, the commitment of atrocities, and general social degeneration. The constant pitting of groups against each other, either as an attempt to correct historic wrongs or perceived current ones, might serve the vogue social visions of today, but they are unlikely to result in a more peaceful, orderly, and prosperous society. He says, "The implications of a pervasive social vision can affect economic, educational and other social outcomes - including the shared norms that hold a society together."
Sowell writes that "wrongs abound in times and places around the world - inflicted on, and perpetrated by, people of virtually every race, creed and color. But what can any society today hope to gain by having newborn babies in that society enter the word as heirs to prepackaged grievances against other babies born into that same society on the same day?" This is an excellent question, and it points to considerations not often in the mind of social agitators. To what degree can we correct the evils of the past, and to what degree can we ignore the deleterious social consequences today of trying to solve the past's problems? Sowell closes the book by observing, "Any serious consideration of the world as it is around us today must tell us that maintaining common decency, much less peace and harmony, among living contemporaries is a major challenge, both among nations and within nations. To admit that we can do nothing about what happened among the dead is not to give up the struggle for a better world, but to concentrate our efforts where they have at least some hope of making things better for the living."
Written and revised as Sowell completes his ninth decade on this earth,Discrimination and Disparities seeks to accomplish that goal. For longtime Sowell fans, this book contains little new in the way of ideas and analysis. This is not a criticism, for if people had paid Sowell heed before now, the nation might not be at the advanced state of turmoil in which it currently find itself. What Discrimination and Disparities does offer is a compelling challenge to modern platitudes, which are really just retreads of old, failed platitudes. He does so less as a debunker or a polemicist, and more as a wise grandfather offering guidance. Thomas Sowell is indeed a national treasure, not because he has successfully debunked modern propaganda, but because he challenges us to think carefully and act with civility - both of which are traits exhibited at perilously low rates in modern society.
Over the decades Sowell has acquired a not entirely unearned reputation as a debunker, especially of leftist social and economic views - including, but not limited to, income redistribution and social justice activism. This perception largely guides reception of his work. For those who disagree with liberal ideas, Sowell's intellectual salvos against these points of view is welcome. For those who hold these views, Sowell's critiques are most unwelcome. But the idea of Sowell as a debunker isn't an entirely accurate reading of his books, which have never been about simply debunking this or that particular factual claim or policy recommendation. Rather, they have served the larger and considerably more important purpose of challenging the assumptions that many Americans, on both the right and the left, base their opinions on.
Such is the goal of Discrimination and Disparities. One might ascertain from the book's title that Sowell intends to prove that discrimination is not the cause of disparities in economic and social outcomes. But, in reality, Sowell's point is both more nuanced and multifarious as he challenges two foundational assumptions behind much of modern social discussions: that, absent discrimination, outcomes would be evenly or randomly distributed across individuals and groups, and that disparities automatically imply discrimination, or indeed any single cause.
The idea of even or random distribution of outcomes, Sowell says, ignores not only human history, but nature. Taking the view of successful outcomes as the result of multiple "prerequisites," Sowell notes that a large majority of tornadoes happens in the United States. Although other countries have similar topographies and environment, it is in North America that all the prerequisites for a tornado most commonly come together. This is not a meteorological non sequitur, as Sowell analogizes weather to human outcomes, which also rely on the confluence of several factors. He cites the uneven outcomes for children of the same parents and for people with the same IQs as evidence that having one significant attribute, or even several important attributes, in common does not guarantee the same level of success in human endeavors. As we look at the various differences in outcomes in society as a whole, Sowell asks, "If there is not equality of outcomes among people born to the same parents and raised under the same roof, why should equality of outcomes be expected - or assumed - when conditions are not nearly so compatible?"
Sowell does not, as some reviewers have claimed, ignore the reality of discrimination. He references discrimination and other forms of oppression so frequently that one suspects the person who claims he ignores such realities of either not reading the book, or having read it through ideological blinders. But neither is he willing to simply accept the existence of disparities as evidence of discrimination. Rather, he treats discrimination as one possibility that can confirmed, discounted or placed in its proper proportion to other factors when considered in the light of empirical data. It is here where Sowell comes closest to being a debunker, as he cites statistics and studies that show group disparities as often explainable by factors other than discrimination. For instance, he notes that income differences between ethnic groups should not be surprising when one group has an average age of over forty and the other has an average age in the twenties. Level of education, consistency and length of employment, and culture are all potential factors that Sowell identifies as part of the causes of various types of disparities, which are unlikely to be the result of any single cause.
Regarding culture, Sowell does not, as other reviewers have said, say that minorities should "just act like white people," which would be odd since he cites social pathologies that limit the success and achievement of the white underclass in both the United States and Britain. Culture is undoubtedly an important factor, Sowell believes, in individual and group results, but he notes that the cultural elements that lead to better outcomes - education, work ethic, civility - are not unique to any specific ethnicity. Ignoring the importance of cultural norms and beliefs, or confining them to a single group, is counterproductive, Sowell believes, especially for what he calls "lagging groups," who in this way are denied the opportunity develop skills and habits that will help them close performance gaps by the very people - liberal intellectuals and activists - who purportedly seek to help them.
Sowell explains, "Despite the inability to confiscate and redistribute human capital, nevertheless human capital is - ironically - one of the few things that can be spread to others without those with it having any less remaining for themselves. But one of the biggest obstacles to this happening is the 'social justice' vision, in which the fundamental problem of the less fortunate is not an absence of sufficient human capital, but the presence of other people's malevolence. For some, abandoning that vision would mean abandoning a moral melodrama, starring themselves as crusaders against the forces of evil. How many are prepared to give up all that - with all its psychic, political and other rewards - is an open question."
The idea of "visions" will be familiar to long-time readers of Sowell, as it goes back at least as far as his 1987 book A Conflict of Visions. Sowell has long been critical of viewing political, economic, and social problems through the lens of visions which are insulated from criticism or empirical analysis, and this is the fundamental problem that Sowell continues to see today. Treating social issues as opportunities to confirm and apply popular dogma is not only counterproductive if our goal is to actually improve the lives of individuals, it is likely to fracture society and generate animosities. This has happened throughout history, all over the world, with the end result not infrequently being violence, the commitment of atrocities, and general social degeneration. The constant pitting of groups against each other, either as an attempt to correct historic wrongs or perceived current ones, might serve the vogue social visions of today, but they are unlikely to result in a more peaceful, orderly, and prosperous society. He says, "The implications of a pervasive social vision can affect economic, educational and other social outcomes - including the shared norms that hold a society together."
Sowell writes that "wrongs abound in times and places around the world - inflicted on, and perpetrated by, people of virtually every race, creed and color. But what can any society today hope to gain by having newborn babies in that society enter the word as heirs to prepackaged grievances against other babies born into that same society on the same day?" This is an excellent question, and it points to considerations not often in the mind of social agitators. To what degree can we correct the evils of the past, and to what degree can we ignore the deleterious social consequences today of trying to solve the past's problems? Sowell closes the book by observing, "Any serious consideration of the world as it is around us today must tell us that maintaining common decency, much less peace and harmony, among living contemporaries is a major challenge, both among nations and within nations. To admit that we can do nothing about what happened among the dead is not to give up the struggle for a better world, but to concentrate our efforts where they have at least some hope of making things better for the living."
Written and revised as Sowell completes his ninth decade on this earth,Discrimination and Disparities seeks to accomplish that goal. For longtime Sowell fans, this book contains little new in the way of ideas and analysis. This is not a criticism, for if people had paid Sowell heed before now, the nation might not be at the advanced state of turmoil in which it currently find itself. What Discrimination and Disparities does offer is a compelling challenge to modern platitudes, which are really just retreads of old, failed platitudes. He does so less as a debunker or a polemicist, and more as a wise grandfather offering guidance. Thomas Sowell is indeed a national treasure, not because he has successfully debunked modern propaganda, but because he challenges us to think carefully and act with civility - both of which are traits exhibited at perilously low rates in modern society.
April 26, 2018
Another masterpiece from Sowell. This one is quite short and focused and in some ways it represents a summary of much of the work he has already done in the past.
What's striking is how TAME his claims are. Ultimately it all feels so obvious. It's truly mind-boggling how astray so many thinkers have gone in this area. One of the best things about Sowell's writing and this book in particular, is his clarity. This book does an excellent job of approaching the phenomenon of disparities thoroughly and simply. It helped me collect my own thoughts on the topic.
He points out that there are two very common explanations for differences in outcomes between groups: genetics and discrimination. The former being internal and the latter being external. There's no denying the existence of genetics, nor discrimination. But in free markets, discrimination is a costly endeavour which conflicts with the pursuit of profits. And although genes are the source of many obvious differences, it's not clear exactly to what extent they affect a person's opportunities in life, especially in areas like intelligence (a controversial area to research because it commonly leads to claims of superiority/inferiority of one group over another).
Two of the most famous and failed social/economic systems of the 20th century attempted to "perfect" society on the basis of one of these two explanations. Communism/socialism sought to end discrimination (specifically, exploitation by capitalists of their workers) and achieve equality. It failed because it destroyed incentives to produce, drove away capitalists and also gave too much power to gov't which got in the wrong hands. Fascism sought to eradicate inferior races who were seen as parasites on society (the Jews, Slavs, gays and others for Nazi Germany) to create a great new nation, strong and proud. It failed for similar reasons to socialism but also because of its defeat by the allies in World War II. The holocaust has made fascism a nearly-universally deplored system.
It is SHOCKING that somehow fascism has been twisted into being seen as a far-right ideology. The Nazis were anti-capitalist and their criticisms of the Jews as scapegoats for many of Germany's problems were practically identical to those leveled against capitalists by socialists. The Jews/capitalists were leeches on the economy, they made money off the work of others, were greedy, never lifted their fingers while others got their hands dirty. The thing is that such roles as borrowing, lending and investing are very useful for an economy but often misunderstood. Some of the Jews, including Einstein, fled and ended up helping the USA develop atomic weapons before Germany.
Sowell points out that aside from genetics and discrimination, countless other factors also affect outcomes, including the way children are brought up and the myriad details of that environment. He points out that first-born children have higher IQs (on average) than their siblings and that only children are even higher. This is striking because siblings have no advantages/disadvantages in genetics OR upbringing. The most likely explanation, Sowell suggests, is the years of undivided attention a first child (or only child) receives early in life. The more children, the less direct adult interaction for each one, especially the later ones.
There's an illuminating section on the way statistics are often used in highly misleading ways, by either leaving out critical details or being thrown together with verbal claims which don't match the data at all. But when it comes to starting political crusades, getting all the facts straight and including all relevant details have never been major priorities.
Thomas Sowell is one of the most brilliant thinkers and clearest explainers of all time. He's earned his retirement (he's 87) but I honestly hope he lives for decades to come, writing more great books for those who care about the truth.
What's striking is how TAME his claims are. Ultimately it all feels so obvious. It's truly mind-boggling how astray so many thinkers have gone in this area. One of the best things about Sowell's writing and this book in particular, is his clarity. This book does an excellent job of approaching the phenomenon of disparities thoroughly and simply. It helped me collect my own thoughts on the topic.
He points out that there are two very common explanations for differences in outcomes between groups: genetics and discrimination. The former being internal and the latter being external. There's no denying the existence of genetics, nor discrimination. But in free markets, discrimination is a costly endeavour which conflicts with the pursuit of profits. And although genes are the source of many obvious differences, it's not clear exactly to what extent they affect a person's opportunities in life, especially in areas like intelligence (a controversial area to research because it commonly leads to claims of superiority/inferiority of one group over another).
Two of the most famous and failed social/economic systems of the 20th century attempted to "perfect" society on the basis of one of these two explanations. Communism/socialism sought to end discrimination (specifically, exploitation by capitalists of their workers) and achieve equality. It failed because it destroyed incentives to produce, drove away capitalists and also gave too much power to gov't which got in the wrong hands. Fascism sought to eradicate inferior races who were seen as parasites on society (the Jews, Slavs, gays and others for Nazi Germany) to create a great new nation, strong and proud. It failed for similar reasons to socialism but also because of its defeat by the allies in World War II. The holocaust has made fascism a nearly-universally deplored system.
It is SHOCKING that somehow fascism has been twisted into being seen as a far-right ideology. The Nazis were anti-capitalist and their criticisms of the Jews as scapegoats for many of Germany's problems were practically identical to those leveled against capitalists by socialists. The Jews/capitalists were leeches on the economy, they made money off the work of others, were greedy, never lifted their fingers while others got their hands dirty. The thing is that such roles as borrowing, lending and investing are very useful for an economy but often misunderstood. Some of the Jews, including Einstein, fled and ended up helping the USA develop atomic weapons before Germany.
Sowell points out that aside from genetics and discrimination, countless other factors also affect outcomes, including the way children are brought up and the myriad details of that environment. He points out that first-born children have higher IQs (on average) than their siblings and that only children are even higher. This is striking because siblings have no advantages/disadvantages in genetics OR upbringing. The most likely explanation, Sowell suggests, is the years of undivided attention a first child (or only child) receives early in life. The more children, the less direct adult interaction for each one, especially the later ones.
There's an illuminating section on the way statistics are often used in highly misleading ways, by either leaving out critical details or being thrown together with verbal claims which don't match the data at all. But when it comes to starting political crusades, getting all the facts straight and including all relevant details have never been major priorities.
Thomas Sowell is one of the most brilliant thinkers and clearest explainers of all time. He's earned his retirement (he's 87) but I honestly hope he lives for decades to come, writing more great books for those who care about the truth.
April 9, 2018
At 87 years old, Sowell is a national treasure. He hit this one out of the park.
This is a dispassionate and carefully analytical look at discrimination and disparities in society.
Carefully researched and brilliantly logical, he highlights why much of today's conventional wisdom is simply wrong.
One of the more fascinating aspects of his analysis is that early on in this book, he analyzes and defines discrimination. "So what," you might say. "That's pretty basic and of course everyone understands that." But Sowell notes that there are conflicting meanings (some actually positive in nature; others benign; others racist) and if we are to carefully study the impacts, we need to be absolutely certain what we're looking at.
His analysis highlights many errors of reasoning and missed variables that are rarely considered in mainstream consideration of these issues. He also brings to bear a long and wide view of historical situations that add to the perspective.
He also highlights exactly why many government policies - while well-meaning - were intellectually flawed and, in fact caused more damage to the groups they were designed to help than anything else.
There are many jaw-dropping statements that left me floored; and when highlighting popular misconceptions, he writes with a fair amount of humor as well.
A must read. And this makes me realize I need to go back and go to town on more of his books.
This is a dispassionate and carefully analytical look at discrimination and disparities in society.
Carefully researched and brilliantly logical, he highlights why much of today's conventional wisdom is simply wrong.
One of the more fascinating aspects of his analysis is that early on in this book, he analyzes and defines discrimination. "So what," you might say. "That's pretty basic and of course everyone understands that." But Sowell notes that there are conflicting meanings (some actually positive in nature; others benign; others racist) and if we are to carefully study the impacts, we need to be absolutely certain what we're looking at.
His analysis highlights many errors of reasoning and missed variables that are rarely considered in mainstream consideration of these issues. He also brings to bear a long and wide view of historical situations that add to the perspective.
He also highlights exactly why many government policies - while well-meaning - were intellectually flawed and, in fact caused more damage to the groups they were designed to help than anything else.
There are many jaw-dropping statements that left me floored; and when highlighting popular misconceptions, he writes with a fair amount of humor as well.
A must read. And this makes me realize I need to go back and go to town on more of his books.
Want to read
June 22, 2020Economics are not my thing, but this author is amazing and to have a working knowledge of these issues is important these days.
February 27, 2020
It has become almost "common knowledge" that those who are doing not so well are doing that way because society has wronged them.
If holding on to that notion is fundamental to your worldview, this book may turn out to be very inconvenient for you.
I have read and listened to the leading experts on the topic of systemic racism and racial inequality, as well as Sowell's takes on the same topic, and, having originally come from a point of view supporting the concept of systemic and institutional racism, I found many of my ideas on the subject to have been split wide open by Sowell.
The literature on systemic racism relies heavily on the fallacy that correlation equals causation, and Sowell illustrates the many ways that this is the case, and how that fallacy is leading to the formulation of counterproductive regulations.
Sowell addresses issues of disparities by placing them in the broad picture, both historically and globally. He argues that many of the policies intended to combat disparities miss the mark both in regard to addressing actual causes (in that many disparities have nothing to do with discrimination), and in regard to producing the desired outcomes.
If holding on to that notion is fundamental to your worldview, this book may turn out to be very inconvenient for you.
I have read and listened to the leading experts on the topic of systemic racism and racial inequality, as well as Sowell's takes on the same topic, and, having originally come from a point of view supporting the concept of systemic and institutional racism, I found many of my ideas on the subject to have been split wide open by Sowell.
The literature on systemic racism relies heavily on the fallacy that correlation equals causation, and Sowell illustrates the many ways that this is the case, and how that fallacy is leading to the formulation of counterproductive regulations.
Sowell addresses issues of disparities by placing them in the broad picture, both historically and globally. He argues that many of the policies intended to combat disparities miss the mark both in regard to addressing actual causes (in that many disparities have nothing to do with discrimination), and in regard to producing the desired outcomes.
November 8, 2018
Reading this book would more or less help you decipher when the so-called experts and/or politicians argue their case with stats to back their claims particularly on the issues of discrimination, disparities and few others that fit under the umbrella of social justice. While it may sounds plausible at a glance, but is it really? Indeed, we value facts and figures, unfortunately for the shrewd even facts and figures could be easily manipulated out of context by pretty words and numbers to suit certain agenda or narrative when its packaged so beautifully as the truth and nothing but the truth and we ought to take them as such because it's so plausible. But after reading this book, you would say: Oh, really? Let's break that down...
April 8, 2021
Sowell provides a clear-eyed, sober perspective on Discrimination and Disparities in contemporary America (mostly concerned with highly politicized issues like race-based discrimination and wealth inequality). His analysis relies on straightforward economic statistics and some historical analysis mixed with his personal ruminations.
Sowell is insightful, pithy, and accessible, making him an engaging read. In Discrimination and Disparities, he does an excellent job of contradicting, problematizing, and qualifying the common, slipshod refrains about racial disparities, wealth inequality, etc (e.g. systemic racism, oligarchic robber barons, capitalism). He dismantles the sweeping progressive worldview deftly, but he also leaves us without a clear alternative explanation or fleshed out solutions. Sowell gestures toward a complex, variable mixture of personal responsibility/work ethic, cultural differences, economic factors, historical forces, and genetic endowments as more persuasive explanations for disparity; however, he doesn't present a model or theory of social organization or a reliable, specific route to success for those currently disadvantaged (at least in this work - he has many others). This may be or is somewhat beyond the scope and purpose of this book, but Sowell is also prone to qualitative and sometime vague alternatives to the problems he so deftly dismantles or illuminates.
Overall, it was a great work just not one with a compelling theory or theories for the various issues raised or extremely detailed and rigorous analyses. However, it is an excellent book for a general audience interested in learning more about these topics and in need of an honest, balanced look at major social challenges.
Sowell is insightful, pithy, and accessible, making him an engaging read. In Discrimination and Disparities, he does an excellent job of contradicting, problematizing, and qualifying the common, slipshod refrains about racial disparities, wealth inequality, etc (e.g. systemic racism, oligarchic robber barons, capitalism). He dismantles the sweeping progressive worldview deftly, but he also leaves us without a clear alternative explanation or fleshed out solutions. Sowell gestures toward a complex, variable mixture of personal responsibility/work ethic, cultural differences, economic factors, historical forces, and genetic endowments as more persuasive explanations for disparity; however, he doesn't present a model or theory of social organization or a reliable, specific route to success for those currently disadvantaged (at least in this work - he has many others). This may be or is somewhat beyond the scope and purpose of this book, but Sowell is also prone to qualitative and sometime vague alternatives to the problems he so deftly dismantles or illuminates.
Overall, it was a great work just not one with a compelling theory or theories for the various issues raised or extremely detailed and rigorous analyses. However, it is an excellent book for a general audience interested in learning more about these topics and in need of an honest, balanced look at major social challenges.
August 22, 2018
Discrimination and Disparities is a surprisingly fascinating and informative read, with a refreshingly politically-neutral, empirical approach. This book is very clearly written, and provides a wealth of information and examples without becoming overwhelming or unintelligible.
This book investigates and explains that, while bigotry-based discrimination is definitely a problem that can't be ignored, it's not accurate to attribute every single difference or disparity between people and groups as caused by racism, sexism, classism, etc., but rather that there's quite a few factors at play in each situation.
This book investigates and explains that, while bigotry-based discrimination is definitely a problem that can't be ignored, it's not accurate to attribute every single difference or disparity between people and groups as caused by racism, sexism, classism, etc., but rather that there's quite a few factors at play in each situation.
July 29, 2020
Amazing review on trying to differentiate between groups deviation (economic, race, gender, geographical, etc) as natural disparities rather than discrimination with ill intent. We attain these misconceptions by coming to conclusions too quickly. Professor Thomas Sowell is able to analyze and counter a lot of these misconceptions with data and studies from a variety of sources. Data that too often get swept under the rug because it does not follow the narrative.
July 14, 2019
As the author tries to keep a centrist and unbiased view on outcomes, starting with explanations of statistics, showing general mathematical principles to underscore arguments left out of the public debate on some issues, he ends up being blind to several bias that he seems to defend throughout the book. He warns us of the dangers of considering some of the facts and ignoring the rest, but falls victim to his own mode of thought.
However, I ended up disliking the book, despite this very appealing message.
By showing how policies intended to help the bottom rung of society end up hurting most of society, it seems to ignore a basic human aspect through the numbers. A neighborhood that goes down in value and up in crime because of subsidized housing attracting people from a lower social status is a low price to pay in exchange for a family that can get off the streets, better opportunities for the children and a broadened perspective. Minimum wage laws ARE very important, even if they reduce overall employment, because there is always someone desperate enough to accept next to nothing in salary, and despite the author's implication, while teens might hold most minimum wage jobs, the current social structure locks people in minimum wage jobs for decades. Such jobs do not represent a transition point in the lives of many people. This is not only due to neo-capitalism that strive to slash costs everywhere and only allow the biggest giants to stay in the game, it's also because of automation that eats away at the available jobs, and throw many people back to square one, with skills that are more and more irrelevant. In that regard, it's increasingly important to ensure that such people are not thrown to the wolves to fend for themselves, and SOME measures of protection are important.
In contrast, the author seemed to revere Milton Friedman, which advocates for a complete destruction of regulations that impede the market. But quoting the success of the US as evidence that such economic principles are sound, compared to Marxism, is really skewed. The US interfered politically and financially in most countries around the world, has waged and IS waging wars right now to ensure it's financial dominance over other nations. The wars for oil in arab regions have always been made in order to protect Saudis interests, in exchange of keeping the global oil trade in US Dollars, which reinforce the Dollar strength and allow lending to be made in dollars across the world, making it a very solid currency despite frequent money-printing, keeping it's stability because of the international trade in Dollar. All of that to say, the US has an unfair advantage on the economic world stage, and saying that it's neo-capitalist views are the right ones by force of examples is like saying that the bully's diet must be the right one (look at his muscles, wow), while he is simply stealing the lunch of everyone else.
I still liked the message of the book (to always look at all the evidence, to remove ourselves from bias, to be careful with stats that encompass groups of people, to consider the prerequisites for success, and to look at other perspectives). But the application of these principles seems to have escaped the author.
However, I ended up disliking the book, despite this very appealing message.
By showing how policies intended to help the bottom rung of society end up hurting most of society, it seems to ignore a basic human aspect through the numbers. A neighborhood that goes down in value and up in crime because of subsidized housing attracting people from a lower social status is a low price to pay in exchange for a family that can get off the streets, better opportunities for the children and a broadened perspective. Minimum wage laws ARE very important, even if they reduce overall employment, because there is always someone desperate enough to accept next to nothing in salary, and despite the author's implication, while teens might hold most minimum wage jobs, the current social structure locks people in minimum wage jobs for decades. Such jobs do not represent a transition point in the lives of many people. This is not only due to neo-capitalism that strive to slash costs everywhere and only allow the biggest giants to stay in the game, it's also because of automation that eats away at the available jobs, and throw many people back to square one, with skills that are more and more irrelevant. In that regard, it's increasingly important to ensure that such people are not thrown to the wolves to fend for themselves, and SOME measures of protection are important.
In contrast, the author seemed to revere Milton Friedman, which advocates for a complete destruction of regulations that impede the market. But quoting the success of the US as evidence that such economic principles are sound, compared to Marxism, is really skewed. The US interfered politically and financially in most countries around the world, has waged and IS waging wars right now to ensure it's financial dominance over other nations. The wars for oil in arab regions have always been made in order to protect Saudis interests, in exchange of keeping the global oil trade in US Dollars, which reinforce the Dollar strength and allow lending to be made in dollars across the world, making it a very solid currency despite frequent money-printing, keeping it's stability because of the international trade in Dollar. All of that to say, the US has an unfair advantage on the economic world stage, and saying that it's neo-capitalist views are the right ones by force of examples is like saying that the bully's diet must be the right one (look at his muscles, wow), while he is simply stealing the lunch of everyone else.
I still liked the message of the book (to always look at all the evidence, to remove ourselves from bias, to be careful with stats that encompass groups of people, to consider the prerequisites for success, and to look at other perspectives). But the application of these principles seems to have escaped the author.
December 29, 2022
Anyone else tired of Anarcho-Capitalists (this including: Libertarians, Friedmanites,Thatcherites, most Neo-Liberals, Classical Liberals, some Anarchists, and at least one person who claims to be a 'Socialist' (Elon Musk)) saying that the world we clearly live in can't be possible because markets wouldn't allow it?
What all these people are actually saying is either
A: Fuck you, peasant, I've got mine.
B: Fuck us, peasants, trust the Lords.
Fuck you, Liberals - Down With Capitalism.
Edit 2023: Yeah, I stand by "fuck liberals". There aren't many worse brands of psychopathy.
What all these people are actually saying is either
A: Fuck you, peasant, I've got mine.
B: Fuck us, peasants, trust the Lords.
Fuck you, Liberals - Down With Capitalism.
Edit 2023: Yeah, I stand by "fuck liberals". There aren't many worse brands of psychopathy.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 626 reviews