Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Intellectuals and Society” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

Intellectuals and Society

Thomas Sowell

4.22 · Rating details · 1,873 ratings · 202 reviews

The influence of intellectuals is not only greater than in previous eras but also takes a very different form from that envisioned by those like Machiavelli and others who have wanted to directly influence rulers. It has not been by shaping the opinions or directing the actions of the holders of power that modern intellectuals have most influenced the course of events, but ...more

Get A Copy

Or buy for

Hardcover, 398 pages

Published January 1st 2010 by Basic Books (AZ) (first published December 10th 2009)

More Details... edit details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Intellectuals and Society, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

The Constitution of the United States of America by Founding Fathers

The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the U... by Founding Fathers

Best Conservative Books

474 books — 250 voters

Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell

The Vision of the Anointed by Thomas Sowell

Intellectuals and Society by Thomas Sowell

Books The Elite Doesn’t Want You To Read

71 books — 5 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

4.22 ·

Rating details

· 1,873 ratings · 202 reviews

Filter

Sort order

Jan 21, 2018 BlackOxford rated it did not like it

Shelves: philosophy-theology, criticism

What Makes You So Smart?

“There has probably never been an era in history when intellectuals have played a larger role in society than the era in which we live.” True or not, for Sowell this is not a good thing. According to him “An intellectual’s work begins and ends with ideas.” But since ideas are not facts, intellectuals, particularly ‘public’ intellectuals, often speak unintelligently and when those to whom they speak have power, the rest of us suffer.

This widespread lack of intelligence am ...more

flag 55 likes · Like · see review

Apr 29, 2010 Adam rated it it was amazing

Shelves: worldview, essentials

Though I've read a number of excellent new non-fiction releases in the past couple years, this one beats them all. Not only that, it'll likely be the most fascinating, disturbing, and brilliant thing I read all year.

Sowell lays out a beautifully researched case for his theme of elitist intellectuals in the West constantly attempting to subvert democracy in favor of oligarchy. Sowell defines intellectuals as professionals who live by ideas, whose end product is abstract and often ideological, and Though I've read a number of excellent new non-fiction releases in the past couple years, this one beats them all. Not only that, it'll likely be the most fascinating, disturbing, and brilliant thing I read all year.

Sowell lays out a beautifully researched case for his theme of elitist intellectuals in the West constantly attempting to subvert democracy in favor of oligarchy. Sowell defines intellectuals as professionals who live by ideas, whose end product is abstract and often ideological, and whose notions--whether they are successful or disastrous--are checked neither by the marketplace (as are the activities and notions of the "merchant class"), by elections (as are the ideas of politicians), or by other real-world repercussions (as are the work of scientists, for example). Rather, intellectuals need only continue to maintain the goodwill and indulgence of other intellectuals--that is, their peers in academia, media, and the arts.

Sowell supplies numerous examples. Just one is the mathematician Bertrand Russell and his career as public intellectual and pundit for many decades. Russell for a very long time advocated pacifism and was part of the movement toward military disarmament in Britain through the 1930s, stating that if "you are prepared to be defenseless and trust to luck, the other people, having no longer any reason to fear you, will cease to hate you, and will lose all incentive to attack you." Of course it was such notions (Sowell marks a sharp distinction between "notion" and "knowledge") being in vogue right up to the eve of WWII that created much talk about "merchants of death" and the vile "international Bedlam rearmament race" in reaction to Britain's growing but still modest Royal Air Force. Sowell remarks: "We now know that those aircraft and munitions provided the narrow margin by which Britain survived Hilter's aerial onslaught . . . despite a widespread view in 1940 that Britain would not survive."

Most pernicious, however, is not the expression of contrary, baseless, and even dangerous notions by intellectuals--no, much worse is the fact that such pundits continue, undisgraced, to disseminate their nonsense on a wide scale, unchecked by their own consciences, by significant public outcry, or by the rebuff of their peers. And they have the gall, time and again, to assert their right to promote cultural imperialism and to talk about the "stupidity" of conservatives, of ordinary people, and of democratic process. It is just such a bizarre climate among Western intellectuals that makes it possible for someone like Russell to swing from zealous pacifism to making the following sort of hawkish comment (in 1948), with no serious repercussions to his career as a pundit:

"Either we must have a war against Russia before she has the atom bomb or we will have to lie down and let them govern us. . . . Anything is better than submission."

And a decade later Russell was back on the pacifism bandwagon, advocating, if need be, letting the USSR rule the world if it meant preventing a war between nuclear powers. Conclusion? Someone with a healthy attitude toward his own ego would have shut up after the Royal Air Force saved his country from Germany's National Socialist party.

Ah, those crazy intellectuals. You can't live with them. You can't live without them. ...more

flag 23 likes · Like · see review

Dec 03, 2010 Marcus rated it it was amazing

Shelves: political-philosophy, economics

This is a strange book. It's an intellectual speaking out against his profession. Sowell defines intellectuals as a people for whom ideas are the beginning and ending of their work. Tenured professors are the most ready example, but intellectuals can also be found outside academia. For example authors, commentators and public speakers who are paid to continue producing ideas. The key is that intellectuals need only continue to attract an audience for their ideas in order to remain relevant.

This This is a strange book. It's an intellectual speaking out against his profession. Sowell defines intellectuals as a people for whom ideas are the beginning and ending of their work. Tenured professors are the most ready example, but intellectuals can also be found outside academia. For example authors, commentators and public speakers who are paid to continue producing ideas. The key is that intellectuals need only continue to attract an audience for their ideas in order to remain relevant.

This reliance on ideas insulates intellectuals in a way that is uncommon in almost any other profession, they are relieved of accountability. Intellectuals can be, and often are, completely wrong and, as long as they can maintain their audience, they are insulated from the negative consequences of their ideas. Intellectuals and Society is about the sources and rationalization of the ideas of intellectuals, the way their ideas are propagated, why they are so often wrong, and the effects of the ideas on the world.

Sowell is a conservative and, not unexpectedly, his targets are liberals like Bertrand Russell, Noam Chomsky, Edmund Wilson, George Bernard Shaw, John Dewey and others. It may seem like an arbitrary or biased selection, but the reason for the focus on liberals comes down to a fundamental difference between liberalism and conservatism. Despite the popular assumption that conservatives only want the status quo, both conservatives and liberals want change. The difference lies in the types of change each wants. Liberals favor change that centralizes and idealizes decision making and power while conservatives seek the type of change that distributes power and that values tradition over ideology.

Liberals often assume that an individual or small group, knows better than the masses. First-hand experiences succumbs to prevailing notions. A concentration of knowledge is seen as being superior to distributed knowledge. Reason trumps experience. One-day-at-a-time rationalization wins over long-term and big picture thinking. Mundane knowledge is shunned for the specialized knowledge of elites. Sowell calls this the vision of the anointed.

Historically, Sowell argues, that type of reform has a bad track record. There are undeniable successes, civil rights, for example, but the failures of mistaken intellectuals, as seen in the section on intellectuals and war, were often catastrophic. Sowell is thorough, insightful and, while nobody will accuse him of having a great sense of humor, he is convincing. ...more

flag 19 likes · Like · see review

Sep 19, 2012 Gwern rated it it was ok

I started this hoping that it would be a bit like Scott's _Seeing Like A State_, which is one of my favorite books, or if not exactly like that, at least like something Charles Murray, who is one of my favorite writers, might have written on the topic.

I was quickly disabused of both hopes. Sowell is not that great a prose stylist and has a gift for putting things in ways that irritate the hell out of me even when I already agree with him.

More importantly, the promise of the flaps and introductio ...more

flag 14 likes · Like · see review

Jan 02, 2015 Jordan rated it it was amazing

Shelves: sociology, economics, politics

The people who have reviewed this book negatively either A) have never read it, or B) are uncomfortable with the truths they have discovered. The key to understanding what Thomas Sowell means when he talks about intellectuals is that intellectuals are not simply "thinking people." Intellectuals are people whose *end product* is simply an idea, and this idea is not subject to traditional real-world validation processes, but is subjected to the weaker form of validation known as peer review. Why i The people who have reviewed this book negatively either A) have never read it, or B) are uncomfortable with the truths they have discovered. The key to understanding what Thomas Sowell means when he talks about intellectuals is that intellectuals are not simply "thinking people." Intellectuals are people whose *end product* is simply an idea, and this idea is not subject to traditional real-world validation processes, but is subjected to the weaker form of validation known as peer review. Why is this important? Einstein's peers in academia might have bashed some of his scientific theories, but history proved that Einstein's theories were more than just *his* theories when the first atomic bomb went off. Engineers' designs are put to the test every day. An auto mechanic's repair practices are validated daily as well. Every time an airline cuts ticket prices and more people buy tickets, theories about price elasticity are validated.

Academics who pontificate over supposed societal wrongs and how to fix them, however, are not subjected to this same type of validation. In this sense, intellectuals operate in a dangerous world where they can be extremely wrong on a variety of matters, but since an echo chamber usually emerges from their typically like-minded peers, these wrongs are not discovered until they have already caused societal damage. Furthermore, intellectuals have a natural set of incentives that causes them to make controversial statements, because no academic ever became famous or achieved stardom from simply agreeing with everyone else. The fatal flaw most intellectuals make is the subtle play where they hope that since you know they are an expert in an extremely narrow field that they must be an expert as well in all kinds of adjacent fields (which they are clearly not). Ultimately, things that improve over time tend to have a good feedback mechanism. That's why private companies tend to perform much better than government services. If a private company is not satisfying its target consumers, it sees that impact immediately in the form of quick feedback: loss of profit. Government agencies, like intellectuals, do not see this kind of quick feedback mechanism, allowing them to operate in an undesirable manner for far longer than a private company would be able.

Pick this book up to learn of the dangers that insulated intellectuals can do and to understand how natural incentives drive this behavior. This is yet another Thomas Sowell classic, and if you enjoyed his other classic works, you will enjoy this one as well. ...more

flag 11 likes · Like · see review

Jun 27, 2012 Brandon rated it really liked it

Shelves: social-commentary, political-economy

The title of this work, and the thrust of its argument, may initially deceive. It is not a critique of the mind or of intellectual pursuits. It is rather a critique of the god-like mentality many intellectuals assume, wreaking social havoc in their arrogant presumption of knowledge. By "intellectuals," Thomas Sowell means those professional thinkers whose end products are ideas, as distinguised from the end products of other professional thinkers like architects or engineers.

Intellectuals and S ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Jan 31, 2010 L rated it it was amazing

Recommends it for: Everyone

Some of the criticism I've encountered accuse Sowell of being the very thing he is criticizing here. I disagree. Sowell uses FACTS and history to demonstate his thesis about the destructive role intellectuals have played. He quotes intellectuals from a variety of spectrums and times in history to support his ideas. This should be required reading for everyone in this media-infested country. We need to WAKE UP in this country. We've forgotten lessons of history and we are lulled into apathy by ou ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Aug 27, 2012 Travis Smith rated it did not like it · review of another edition

I wish I had a year to comb through this amazing book of selective bias and write a lengthy rebuttal. If you read this book, keep in mind that his arguments are constructs of half-truths and ironically, represents the perfect example of what he calls, "verbal virtuosity". I found this review on Amazon and I'm reposting it here, as I agree with it in its entirety:

In this unbelievable book, Thomas Sowell has produced what must be the most incomplete discussion of modern U.S. History ever written. ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Feb 25, 2010 Петър Стойков rated it it was amazing

Shelves: всеки-трябва-да-прочете

Интелектуалците са хората, чийто начален и краен продукт са идеи - идеи, които нямат връзка с практиката и за своята оценка зависят не от обективни критерии, а само от мнението на други интелектуалци. Такива области са философията, литературата (и изкуството като цяло), социологията, политологията и др.

Най-характерното за хората с тези професии е, че като цяло тяхната дейност няма никакъв практически измерител. За разлика от другите професии на ума (инженери, лекари, учени, програмисти, дизайне Интелектуалците са хората, чийто начален и краен продукт са идеи - идеи, които нямат връзка с практиката и за своята оценка зависят не от обективни критерии, а само от мнението на други интелектуалци. Такива области са философията, литературата (и изкуството като цяло), социологията, политологията и др.

Най-характерното за хората с тези професии е, че като цяло тяхната дейност няма никакъв практически измерител. За разлика от другите професии на ума (инженери, лекари, учени, програмисти, дизайнери) - дали си, примерно, голям философ или социолог не може да се измери или изчисли в някакви парични или материални резултати (излекувани пациенти, построени сгради, спечелени пари) - то се определя само и единствено от мнението на други философи или социолози.

Според Т.Солуел, тези хора определят обществения и политически идеен климат на нашето общество. Но тъй като действителността не им действа като спирачка (те работят само в мисълта си), творейки идеи за обществения и политически живот, те започват да приемат желаното от тях за факт, а предположенията си - за истина, пренебрегвайки реалността.

Политиките и идеите, които те проповядват всъщност често противоречат на всякакви доказателства, а често и на здравия разум, но чрез ораторско майсторство и от позицията си на интелектуални стожери, те успяват да ги оправдаят пред колегите си интелектуалци и последователите си от интелигенцията и да задават курса на развитие на обществените настроения и политики.

Така например фактът, че щедрите социални програми поощряват много хора да не работят, няма значение за интелектуалците - тяхната идея, че тези програми "помагат на бедните" и идеята за "социална справедливост" са по-важни от действителността, която създават. Същото е и с "мултикултурното общество" - за интелектуалците идеята, че трябва да приемаме и поощряваме другите култури е по-важна от факта, че е откровено глупаво да поощряваш някой, който откровено не те харесва. Примерите са много - международното разоражаване създавало мира, въпреки, че така разоражени остават само тези, които искат мир, но не и тези, които планират война - забраната на личното оръжие намалявала престъпленията, въпреки че ако оръжието е незаконно, ще го имат само хората извън закона ... и т.н.

Накратко - левите идеи са продиктувани от това, че създателите им, основно интелектуалци, пренебрегват реалността и я заменят с това какво трябва да бъде и как нещата стават според техните фантазии. Това описва подробно Соуел в книгата си, давайки десетки примери, обяснявайки причините.

Ако Томас Соуел не беше черен, щяха да го изядат, наричайки го "расист", "нацист" и т.н. Не, че той е такъв - нищо подобно. И книгата му няма нищо общо с тези въпроси. Но такива епитети обичат да лепят медийните интелектуалци на хората, които изобличават ирационалния им начин на мислене и кухите им идеи. ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Apr 12, 2017 Michael Malice rated it it was amazing

the most comprehensive attack on the evangelical left that I've read

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Apr 01, 2013 Jeremy Hickerson rated it it was ok

This recently published book (2010) makes a very thorough case against government action of most any kind, with the exception of war. I spent over an hour looking through Sowell's latest book at Borders. The blurb inside the jacket caught my attention because it mentioned how intellectuals influence our democratic process by shaping the thinking of the electorate, rather than directly persuading elected officials. I saw this as a significant insight into how our system works. I extend the theory This recently published book (2010) makes a very thorough case against government action of most any kind, with the exception of war. I spent over an hour looking through Sowell's latest book at Borders. The blurb inside the jacket caught my attention because it mentioned how intellectuals influence our democratic process by shaping the thinking of the electorate, rather than directly persuading elected officials. I saw this as a significant insight into how our system works. I extend the theory to any media person with a large audience, the impact of their ideas is greatly amplified. Rush Limbaugh could be an example. A good communicator with a big audience has diproportionately expanded political speech, similar to the expansion of speech rights for corporations under the new Supreme Court ruling. I would argue that the media figure actually has greater power than the corporation. Remember the clashes between GOP chairman Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh over which of them speaks for the Republican Party?

We have all understood how big business and lobbyists are dominating our political debate and many of us see this as very bad for our nation. But I haven't heard much discussion about the great influence of the very small minority of opinion shapers. So I was disappointed to see that Sowell turned from what could have been a full analysis of this phenomenon and instead chose to pursue a one-sided attack on government. That said, he makes some very good points that should give pause to anyone attempting to govern. There is no question that history is full of examples of unintended consequences, government actions that backfire and make the situation worse, and "public intellectuals" being proven totally wrong by unfolding events. Sowell lists these out with relish. It is a truth that we cannot generally see weaknesses in our own beliefs. People with different convictions are only too happy to point these out, and we can learn from them. Sowell is not immune to this, he sees none of the failings of his own hands-off dogma. I will point these out and show that his overall conclusions are incorrect even though much of what he says is true.

One of the main arguments of "Intellectuals and Society" is that there is far more intelligence distributed among the many actors in the market than can be contained in a small group of experts. This makes sense in a certain way, and is really just a restatement of the Adam Smith's invisible hand. Yet we have an example right before us in recent history where the invisible hand guided market players to make extremely risky loans against no collateral. I have heard Wall Street experts describe how in this climate even prudent managers were basically forced to participate because if they didn't they would be outperformed in the short term by those who did, due to the bubble economics at play. In fact, any bet against the bubble would be impossible to collect, since if you were right then the counterparty to the bet was bankrupt. So experts may frequently be wrong, but the market can also be "wrong", or at least lead us somewhere we don't want to go.

When experts attempt to tinker with complex systems they can easily cause big problems, sometimes bigger than the problem they're trying to solve. Sowell uses this to argue against intervening in the system. Taken to the extreme, this means essentially no government. But what is government other than a very greatly expanded version of a group of people combining forces for greater efficiency? If a neighborhood gets together and decides to take care of their own garbage service to save money, this takes some organization, a group decision, and a willingness to abide by that decision. We accept leadership and top-down decisions in the corporate structure (and all of us who have worked in this environment know how disconnected from day-to-day reality these can sometimes be). Yet corporations can have great success being guided by an elite at the top.

Believe me, I'm very much in favor of keeping things simple and keeping an organization lean and small. But does that mean that you should forgo any consolidation of forces to protect individual freedom? This is the trade-off. If you never want someone to tell you what to do, then you are reduced to a lone-wolf status, with no benefit from others resources or know-how. I am arguing that good government may sometimes tell you what to do, but you are getting a great benefit from its efficiencies and combined resources. (I know the idea of efficiencies and government in the same sentence seems ridiculous, but bear in mind that we have a huge country here and so obviously there is a fair degree of waste in this process when you consider the many levels of government involved).

I would grant that our government is too big and too centralized, so we can easily find problems with it. I would be happier with a much more local level of organization. However, this is what we've got, I don't think that means that it is useless. I don't think it means that we would be better off with nothing. ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Apr 01, 2010 Ilia Markov rated it did not like it · review of another edition

This book is so poor that it is hard to keep a straight face when discussing it.

For the better part it sounds like a 'rant' against 'smart people who assume too much' on the part of the author. Mixing wild examples, assumptions and generalizations on the basis of limited experiences, the author vents his frustration.

Just to make it worse the author does not make a critique of intellectuals in general, just of those who are 'liberal', 'left', etc. There are intellectuals, who are bad, and preside ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Jun 06, 2013 Gary Foss rated it did not like it

Shelves: wish-i-hadn-t, boofshelf

This is a fascinating idea: a study upon the nature and influence of intellectuals themselves upon society. What more appropriate group for study than the people dedicated to study? Many people have described the nature of academia, or the processes of research and development in American life, but as far as I know, nobody has turned the spotlight on intellectuals as a group. That lack means that such an analysis is not only warranted, but even needful.

Unfortunately, Sowell fails in this analysi ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jan 27, 2013 Bill rated it it was amazing

In a free society with limited government, individuals make millions of decisions and live with the consequences. As our government has grown bigger and more intrusive, intellectuals have played a major role telling us what programs will work for our own good. However, they are often wrong, but that doesn't stop them. They pay no consequences. Here is the author quoting Eric Hoffer:

"One of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Aug 28, 2012 John rated it did not like it

An incredibly biased book that attempts to disguise itself as a scholarly work. Sowell contemptibly describes those who disagree with his views as "intellectuals" and portrays them as know-nothing elites, while excusing those intellectuals who do agree with him from that labeling. The way he manipulates language in the book is ridiculous. When he is discussing something he wants the reader to dislike or disagree with, he uses exclusively negative language, while doing the opposite when he wants ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Apr 05, 2013 Nick Huntington-Klein rated it did not like it

Shelves: read-in-2011

A terrible and poorly argued book. I didn't know who Sowell was when I picked it up but I certainly won't be reading anything else by him.

A common approach of his is to define a term, make grandiose and universal claims about it, no-true-scotsman any obvious exceptions (he'll often have one word for the "good" version of something and another for the "bad" as if they were fundamentally different things - what's the difference? Apparently, whether or not they agree with his politics), then make a ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Nov 12, 2016 Freddy marked it as to-read

A friend of mine recommanded this book to me during this 2016 Presidential Election. Given the result is that Trump won, I think I shall recommand the book to all people I know, especially professors, students, media professionals, etc. It's time to rethink something.

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Apr 23, 2014 Kendall rated it it was ok

Recommends it for: neoconservatives

A very disappointing book that claims to analyze the role and influence of intellectuals in the larger society, but sets up intellectuals as having a misguided bent to liberalism, which Sowell restricts to contemporary political progressivism and those conservatives who are not in the neo-conservative camp. Of the many examples of intellectuals' interaction with society he might have chosen from, he prefers those in which the 'intellectual' under scrutiny did not do his or her homework and gets ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Feb 10, 2013 Charlene rated it did not like it

Shelves: worst-books-ever, philosophy

I love books that address the problem of "experts" and elitist thinking that filters down to the mainstream. So, I was sure I would love this book. However, the arguments presented by Sowell were so poorly constructed and had such gaping holes, there was no point to finishing this book. The good points were constantly lost and muddied in the mire of bad arguments.

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Mar 30, 2018 Sandra rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: economics, history, politics, philosophy, social-sci

Tricky to rate. I'll go with 4/5 because some parts (on class and race) are excellent, including the counter-arguments to the infamous observations on race and IQ in The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.

Despite too many less-than-stellar chapters, I found this door-stopper worth the time. There seems to be a bit of a mean streak in his writing, but Thomas Sowell is still one of my favorite contemporary thinkers.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Feb 13, 2013 Jason Goetz rated it liked it

I need to preface this by saying that I am a big fan of Sowell's works. But at this point I believe he has been over-published, and much of his work is now repetitive. Intellectuals and Society bears too much similarity to previous works of his such as A Conflict of Visions, and those works are shorter, which means that much of this work will be a waste of time.

Most of the content is superb. Some of his examples of where intellectuals attempt to make pretentious and dubious claims to the right t ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Dec 11, 2013 Dan rated it did not like it

If your politico-economc ideals align with the Friedman/Hayek/Buckley ilk, then this is a book for you. I couldn't take any more after 30 pages. He sets up a lot of straw man arguments and bashes the liberal intellectuals and intelligentsia. No doubt, there are certainly intellectuals and members of the intelligentsia that are elitist and employ their clout in one field to speak authoritatively on something which they know next to nothing about, but Sowell seems to completely negate any knowledg ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

May 02, 2011 Sally rated it did not like it

Didn't get into it as his right-leaning slant was extremely obvious. Even how he defined intellectuals seemed designed to exclude all but humanities professors. When he wrote that financiers paid for their mistakes, that was the deal-breaker. Yeah right. And how many Wall St. financiers do you know who are arguing for change so that their decimation of our economy doesn't happen again. Or how many CEOs of failed companies are hired by other companies (after they get their golden parachute)? Are ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Sep 13, 2010 David rated it it was amazing

Shelves: economics

This is perhaps the finest literary societal critique I have ever read. In a masterful display of powerful analytic thought, well-researched fact, and effectively no bias towards any particular group, Sowell tears into the intellectual foundations of our society and reveals just how cancerous they have become. This book was by no means a simple and quick read. It is incredibly thorough in its background research and it is beautifully written. This is an absolute must read if you are interested i ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jul 25, 2014 Roslyn rated it it was amazing

Lies My Teacher Told me blows away kids in high school. This book does the same but for college graduates. Holy crap I feel lied to! What an incredible read!

I don't want to pretend like this book is perfect though. Sowell has a much better grasp of how politics, economics, and history are "spun" than he does art or fiction or stories in general. Sowell would greatly benefit from reading Hero With a Thousand Faces, Deschooling Society, and The Romantic Manifesto, among other things.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Mar 04, 2015 Ryan Rommann rated it did not like it

I like Sowell in small doses as he typically has interesting and uncommon views - some of with which I agree. But this book is 600 pages of unabashedly biased double-speak. It's a political hit job masquerading as a quasi-academic discussion of "intellectuals" which Sowell makes only the slightest attempt to hide his real definition as "liberals I disagree with."

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 31, 2010 Derek rated it it was amazing

It is always difficult, if not impossible, to foretell what books will still be read generations from now. If I had to bet, I would bet that this book will be among them. I am not sure if I enjoyed it quite as much as the Vision series, but it is close. Dr. Sowell believes it is his most important work. A reader is always a little wiser after having read the works from this great scholar.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Mar 12, 2018 TheF7Pawn rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Sowell's thesis is simple and clearly stated: intellectual elites and experts are not to be blindly trusted. Nassim Nicholas Taleb has said much the same thing in his works while avoiding Sowell's blunt and politically incorrect implications. That an intellectual can criticize other intellectuals without offering a prescriptive way out of an imagined "impasse," as one perplexed reviewer opined, is hardly a disqualifying conundrum. No one criticized Aristophanes for lampooning Socrates and the in Sowell's thesis is simple and clearly stated: intellectual elites and experts are not to be blindly trusted. Nassim Nicholas Taleb has said much the same thing in his works while avoiding Sowell's blunt and politically incorrect implications. That an intellectual can criticize other intellectuals without offering a prescriptive way out of an imagined "impasse," as one perplexed reviewer opined, is hardly a disqualifying conundrum. No one criticized Aristophanes for lampooning Socrates and the intellectual class of ancient Athens when he wrote The Clouds 2,500 years ago. The question Sowell poses can be summarized by reference to Sidney Hook who allegedly asked Albert Einstein: "I don't lecture you about physics; why to you lecture me about politics?"

That's the point of Intellectuals and Society. Sowell takes the pronunciamentos of the high and mighty, the great and gifted, and scrutinizes them against outcomes. In chapter after chapter on issues ranging from inner city crime, to economics, to international security, he uses this method to measure stated goals with actual results. This method is hardly unusual in scholarly circles. Although trained as a quantitative economist, Sowell uses well-established ethnographic and comparative interpretations to arrive at his conclusions. In the end, he makes a convincing case that his theory (borrowed from Hayek) of expert knowledge (deep and narrow) versus accumulated common knowledge (broad, and nuanced) has validity.

Given that social action is inherently complex, dynamic, and virtually limitless in its permutations, the book demonstrates the risks of expert knowledge. Where Sowell, in my opinion, slips is in his analysis of war and international security situations. Here, the role of deception and misperception often influence outcomes and even copious amounts of post hoc research may only produce more questions and uncover more enigmas. Thus, Sowell's narrative of Germany after World War I is conventional and predictable while scholars such as Gerhard Weinberg have themselves challenged this view for years by, among other things, claiming that Germany got off relatively lightly at Versailles and not, as received opinion holds, that Versailles punitive terms played a significant role in the run up to World War Two.

These minor demurrals aside, I still recommend the work if only for the description of the characterization of social knowledge and its impact on society. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Feb 18, 2018 Jon rated it did not like it

Such a strange book. I went in knowing that the author was a conservative economist, and I chose this book because it was his most recent publication that I could easily get my hands on.

The author starts off by denouncing “intellectuals” for pontificating outside their areas of expertise. Then he proceeds to present himself as somehow expert in fields as diverse as sociology, constitutional law, theology, military history, political theory, philosophy, hermeneutics, and art criticism. I’m not an ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Aug 30, 2017 Micah Scelsi rated it it was amazing

I guess people either love or hate this book. It may be because it come down pretty hard on "Left" Intellectuals. The book doesn't start this way. In fact the author does a nice job of constructing his arguments and definitions so that there is no confusion what he means when he references something like an "intellectual" or "knowledge." Some of the reading can be difficult, but in general the author tries to make this accessible to a larger audience. He himself points out the difficulty of comm I guess people either love or hate this book. It may be because it come down pretty hard on "Left" Intellectuals. The book doesn't start this way. In fact the author does a nice job of constructing his arguments and definitions so that there is no confusion what he means when he references something like an "intellectual" or "knowledge." Some of the reading can be difficult, but in general the author tries to make this accessible to a larger audience. He himself points out the difficulty of communicating in various styles for different audiences, and how only some of the best are able to communicate in such a fashion. So, not bad for an economics professor/writer.

I have a business degree, so his way of laying out things through the focus of economics may appeal to me more than others. Still his argument is laid out fairly logically:

Intellectuals: Those who produce solely ideas, as well as those who disseminate and build upon those ideas. These people often have limited personal consequences for ideas they espouse and are incentivized to think along the same lines as their peers (those who validate their works/ideas). They are also incentivized to go beyond their field/knowledge in order to gain acclaim and money.

Knowledge: This is more than just books, but includes the "mundane" knowledge held and passed down by millions of individuals. It includes wisdom/experience, and dwarfs the cumulative knowledge held by intellectuals.

The Anointed: Intellectuals tend to consider themselves as elite and believe they can guide society to a better or proper place. Their arrogance causes them to believe their knowledge is sufficient to do this, and they thus advance their solutions. Generally such solutions involve increased government (and control by the intellectuals), regardless of the consequences or net benefits of these "solutions." Their views are religiously expounded and defended. Such viewpoints see them as being on a higher moral plane than others, thus enabling intellectuals to trample laws and traditions in order to bring about their views (to benefit others and elevate themselves).

The Vision: Intellectuals tend to see themselves as the "anointed" ones who will lead those below them to a better life. Any problems in the world are viewed as something that is caused by, and can be fixed by, institutions. By contrast, the opposing view sees Man in a Fallen State. In this contrasting view, there will always be problems in life and it is a matter of balancing imperfections.

Those are the main constructs of Sowell's argument. He then moves into demonstrating that intellectuals lack a clear understanding of economics, crime/punishment, and war. Rather than a true intellectual debate, they tend to simply advance their ideas as true, and discredit those they do not agree with. The book gives a nice broad summary, but also gives good illustrative examples throughout.

The concluding chapter is more of a summary. It doesn't provide much new information, and it doesn't have a very strong ending. It may have been the initial/stand-alone basis of the book prior to it being researched and expanded upon. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
There are numerous Slight Collections that donot appear	1	4	Sep 12, 2016 10:43PM

Readers Also Enjoyed

Genres

Politics

121 users

Economics

71 users

Nonfiction

69 users

Philosophy

66 users

History

48 users

Sociology

29 users

See top shelves…

About Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell

1,608 followers

Thomas 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 scholars Thomas 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.

...more

Books by Thomas Sowell

Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy

A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles

The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy

More…

Trivia About Intellectuals and...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Intellectuals and...

“Intellect is not wisdom.” — 118 likes

“If facts, logic, and scientific procedures are all just arbitrarily "socially constructed" notions, then all that is left is consensus--more specifically peer consensus, the kind of consensus that matters to adolescents or to many among the intelligentsia.” — 21 likes

More quotes…