chewyismycopilot The difference is when people call themselves intellectuals and proclaim themselves experts vs OTHERS calling them experts. Did Thomas claim to be an intellectual??? Or are others simply recognizing that trait in him?
I am 61 and have just discovered Thomas Sowell. Someone once said, "when the student is ready the teacher will appear". That you Thomas, I pray I get to meet you some day or at least attend one of your speaking events.
Sowell is indeed an intellectual. But the difference between him and those he is talking about is the fact that he does not wish to impose his will on others. He also does not assume that just because he is smart he defacto has the authority to run other people lives. I love how people think they are smarter than this great man based on a 6 min video, go read a few of the 30 books he's written and then get back to me with these claims.
So, are people not allowed to criticize him because he is smart and you agree with his political views? "But the difference between him and those he is talking about is the fact that he does not wish to impose his will on others." By advocating for a particular political and economical ideology, he is in fact imposing his will on others.
@Jack Hack That is what every intellectual thinks and claims about his own ideas ;-) And it is not 100% for anybody. Everybody has their biases. Some at least acknowledge them. Btw this does not mean I do not highly respect Sowell
How do you "drown out" an ideology? Only by silencing those who hold it, by imprisoning or executing them. But it has been the consistent history of the Left to employ such tactics (think Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red China, Cuba, etc), not the Right, which is all about free speech and open exchange of ideas.
The French Revolution was like all other leftist revolutions; it executed in large numbers those who opposed it. It ignored its so-called Rights of Man, and ended in the Napoleonic dictatorship. Those various regimes you mentioned as "right wing" were in fact not of the Right, but were just authoritarian governments that happened to be anti-communist. The true Right is all about small government and much individual liberty. Do not make the mistaken of thinking that all foreign despots supported by the US over they years were of the Right; many were not, they just happened to be anti-communist, so we backed them as better than the hard left alternatives (Batista in Cuba and Pinochet in Chile being two good examples of this pragmatic policy). It is a sad fact of history that many people have had to suffer bad governments because there were no good alternatives available to them.
I love this man!! Can we multiply him and just put him in every school in every neighborhood in every town and city across this nation and then maybe our children will understand what education actually is.
did you not watch the video he was literally explaining how just because someone is an intellectual or an expert doesn't mean they deserve to be in power
Heavily disagree with that principle. 'Bad' politics should be tested and proven as such in discussion. If you restrict a group of individuals as being the only ones 'Good' at politics and to able to participate in it, you have e essentially set your political ground for an authoritarian regime.
@@isawthesun It isn't that they shouldnt be able to discuss politics or vote. The idea is that their social influence is disproportionate to their ability in a political domain. If an actor posts a post on instagram, he influences thousands, if not millions, of people. And if he does so despite not knowing what he is exactly talking about, because he is an actor and not a professional politican or philosopher or economist (depending on the political debate), he runs a high risk of saying something that perhaps sounds intuitively nice, or good, or moral, or whatever, but produces a catastrophe in reality.
The problem with intellectuals is that they are subject to a competitive environment as a way to achieve their status, and then due to the build up of ego needed to reach that point, they basically do not know how to operate without such an ego. And they make it their mission to prevent and deny other people the right to learn and reach that level. They are actually closed minded to the idea, because they want sole control over their domain, think of it as intellect capitalism. This presents a massive issue in society, because it stimulates stupidity and limits how many people can be respectfully regarded as experts on a given subject. Therefore you could spend your entire life on a topic, but if someone has better status than you, you will be shunned and treated like an amateur. This is mostly a fault of the system we have, but a large fault also has to befall on the individuals (intellects) that perpetuate such a system for their personal status and benefit at the cost of other people. The other large problem and issue is that should they become corrupted and bought out as has happened in the past with educational institutions. They basically serve interests outside of what they should serve. And such exploits have devastating results on society. And because they expect not to be questioned it gives rise to a type of intellectual Absolutism and/or Dictatorship. All very dangerous things that negatively affect the success of an unsuppressed and unexploited civilization. What we have is the workings of a oligarchical power structure that benefits from having a dumbed down society/population. And this culture is perpetuated by many intellectuals. That arrogance is simply unacceptable and there are exceptions. But not enough.
"The people" being...? Obviously not experts in automobile efficiency. lol. I'll take their advice about how to inflate my tires over Sowell any day. No small irony.
Tire inflation is nothing you need to take anyone's advice about. The manufacturer molded the specifications into the sidewall of the tire itself. So do some original research yourself in the right place. The truth is out there!
I believe the quote goes more along the lines of, "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." See, even you didn't know what you thought you did. Which is the point Socrates was trying to make.
good call haha i just couldn't be arsed typing the whole thing - the intelligent become arrogant and the idiots suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect of which more is written - good on Mr Sowell for calling attention to the arrogance of intellectuals - we could call it the Sowell effect lol. i believe Warren Buffet explains it well when he talks about how he doesn't understand Tech companies - so he sticks to what he knows - he calls it sticking to his circle of competence - haha and knowing he doesn't know it all seems to have worked for him :-)
You guys are aware that Plato, the one who actually wrote most things about Socrates since Socrates wrote nothing himself, is also the guy that wanted a kingdom governed by philosopher kings, basically the intelligentsia, and therefore is exactly the sort of guy Sowell is talking about here. Knowing to be humble or seeing it as a virtue, and actually being humble, are two very different things.
Bill Nye is a good example of someone that has stepped outside his area of expertise. Honorary degrees don't add anything except ego for the recipient.
i dont think every thing sowell says is right or true but i do really love his thoughts on things,like race economics etc.this man is a great human being.
Anti-intellectualism is on the rise. If you are an independent researcher whom does your best to approach things with skepticism and logic, kudos to you! You're all in dangerously low supply.
Mortem Rex anti-intellectualism lol. I love how skeptics and logical people are anti intellectuals now. But it's the truth, intellectuals brand themselves as superiors simply because their only good is their imagination, but that doesn't make them smart, logical or correct.
Alex König I was commending people who do their own research. Idk wtf this dude thinks I said, so perhaps people should fucking read before jumping the gun. That's what has got me confused. At no point did is say logical people are anti-intellectuals, so...
Thomas Sowell is a national treasure but he is 86 years old, I hope there are people up and coming from the younger generations to take up his knowledge and ability to share it.
This man is a true western colossus. Calm, authoritative and so wise. No wonder we here in the UK never see him on our screens. No race hustling leftie-and truly dangerous to their house of cards. THANK YOU for putting him up-we here in England value your teaching, God Bless America-only the USA gives us men like this these days!
thomas sowell seems to be one of the rare people that actually use common sense in our crazy society. such a sharp and rational mind. sadly people like him almost never end up in positions of power.
Mr. Sowell you are truly a wise man ! I just love the logic and insight , truly rare in this " I feel " world . Nice to know there are still some " I think " people out there . Cheers
I've been reading his columns for longer than I can remember, and he can make more sense in 300 words than most "intellectuals" can make in a lifetime.
I have heard that a truly intelligent person understands and recognizes the limits of what it is they know. In other words, they can accept and appreciate the truth of their limitations. Mr. Sowell is a wise, insightful, and gifted human. Thx
So many generalizations about "Intellectuals," which has been a far cry from my experience in education where I was exposed to perhaps as much conservative literature as I was liberal. That's the problem with anti-intellectualism, is that it closes people's minds off to what is often the best sources of knowledge, which is a formal education. Independent research is great, but if you haven't been trained on how to manage your own personal bias, then you'll find yourself living in a cacophony of common voices and now you're just another ideologue.
Except that self-proclaimed intellectuals are elitist and don't see when they're wrong and they keep themselves ignorant to the reality of their ideas' consequences either willingly or lack of comprehension on the matter. They view having formal education as proof of expertise. If you don't have a degree you don't know what you're talking about. That's the general misconception. This is why it's generally the self-proclaimed intellectuals that believe in the theory of communism, believing it's viable when reality says otherwise. It's also why it's generally the self-proclaimed intellectuals that have the "holier than thou" attitude and believe that [especially if they're in government] if you give more power to the government, then the problems will be solved. And this is despite the fact that government's caused most of the problems by interfering either too much or at all to begin with.
And the reason i say "if you don't have a degree then you don't know what you're talking about" is a widespread misconception is that it is also a logical fallacy. It's an argument from a position of authority and it implies that as long as you don't have a degree even if you've read the major papers that are the heart of the subject, that you don't know what you're talking about. For example, i don't have a degree in constitutional law but all i need to do is break down the second amendment, include the definition of "infringe" bring in the 10th amendment, a clause in article 1 section 8, and a section of jurisprudence to prove that not only are weapons restrictions by government technically illegal, the ones in place are legal to ignore and any and all court rulings upholding them are not legitimate rulings. But for something more simple i could use the 10th amendment and the constitutional convention to prove federal social welfare and many federal agencies as unconstitutional and therefore illegitimate. And even simpler i can prove that indefinite funding for the Army for longer periods than 2 years to be illegal as well with article 1 section 8 clause 12 which, along with the amendments i already mentioned, has NOT been overridden by a constitutional amendment meaning the relevant sections of the constitution are still legally absolute. And with all of this i can prove that our entire government, on all levels, is no longer legitimate and that every official in every branch of government and at all levels is technically impeachable for high crimes and misdemeanors simply because of their lack of compliance with the constitution. In other words, were a civil war to break out today, the government would be the rebellion, not the people that rise against it. If you want to get down to technicality.
It helps if you abstract all these individuals into "elitists" and then proceed to over generalize about the prejudices of a diverse group of people. Just because someone has expertise in an area, does not make them into some kind of elitist jerk who thinks only people like them know anything. Most people who consider themselves "intellectual" don't embrace communism, most are liberal humanists who would adopt a mixed economic approach rather than a completely socialist or laissez faire approach. We have a complex society with issues that need to be addressed, but we need to also realize that government intervention can be harmful when misapplied and create bureaucracies which can be hard to get rid of. The trick of liberalism is not try to reduce the state to the most minimal place possible, you want to get the government to a place where individual rights are protected and secure so that investment can proceed, but you also want to maintain essential stability which includes infrastructure, healthcare, utilities, law enforcement. Without such things, markets cannot exist and function in healthy ways, but we shouldn't just implement any "liberal" idea out of the sun, but well planned and responsibly funded projects that do their best to also incorporate the will and interests of the States. That's close to about how most "intellectuals" I have talked to have presented their belief about government and its purpose in society, beyond the more extreme leftist kind which aren't as common as I think it is portrayed on the internet.
it's why i stated "self-proclaimed" intellectuals, not ACTUAL intellectuals. However, in the US, a mix system at the state level is fine but many aspects of it at the federal level is technically illegal and if you go through the constitution, the prevailing arguments at the constitutional convention, and writings of many of the founders, it's very easy to glean what parts are legal federally and what parts are either not legal federally or not legal to be implemented by government period. And what you're going on about is CLASSICAL liberalism, not American liberalism, there is a very clear difference. Also, with the exception of providing minimum standards [and cost caps as current necessity dictates], government has no place being involved in healthcare. And with the exceptions of providing minimum standards, government has no place in the private sector at all. And i tend to look at political ideas from a LEGAL standpoint and not a partisan one. And the majority of ideas for the federal level in which implementation is illegal come from the Left. Of course some come from the right like the Patriot Act or the AHCA or even NASA or having the Air Force as a stand-alone military branch. When looking from a legal standpoint i'll shoot down EVERY idea that is currently illegal, informing the one who proposed it that changes to the constitution would have to be made to allow for it or, with most of them, have them implemented at the state level.
"when you take the power out of their hands, and give it back to the market [everything goes better]" wow good thing this guy is looking out for us, Bob! Let the market handle things coz these darn intellectuals are up to something.
My mom held me out of school until I was 7, I couldn't wait to go and it was great. She got me up early the next to take me back and I told her her " but Mom I already did that" and I went fishing. Common sense matters most.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes... He said it himself. Don't make that mistake. Sowell's views are not one entity. It is many. You can agree on some of his points, while disagreeing on others. Or you can agree on a point, while disagreeing with the solution. Whatever. So there are more than two types of people. Don't make him into this "god" you either understand, or don't understand.
There are some valid points in this, such as about the market generating better economic results for itself than central planners are able to achieve. But some of his other points... 1. First of all, it should be mentioned that if "Intellectuals" is defined as people who step out side their fields of expertise to weigh in on unrelated subjects, OR as people whose end product is ideas, then Thomas Sowell qualifies by both of those metrics. 2. Intellectuals do pay a price when their ideas fail, roughly equivalent to the price an engineer pays if his building collapses. In both cases, the price is one of reputation: prestige, professional credential, and social standing. The difference is that a building plan can be tested by building the building, and we build those constantly. A big idea involving changing society in some way gets tested once or twice per century, so we rarely get the sorts of test results that can disprove such an idea. I think he's referring to Marxism is the tested idea whose proponents sill exist in abundance and whom he perceives has not having paid a price. Two problems with that: one they have paid, and continue to pay, some price for those failed experiments. And two, their position is that the test was faulty, as it most certainly was. It doesn't meet the standards to which we would hold any other empirical test. To roughly the same degree that it could be called the social experiment of the 20'th Century, call it "faulty" may be the "understatement of the 20'th Century." It was psychotic maniacs, no exaggeration, setting up dictatorships of terror and genocide, with fully centralized power, laughably, really laughably calling it Marxism or Communism(which is about the diffusion of power, democratically, to the people) to dupe the masses into signing up like sheep for the slaughter and slavery. And actual Marxists(Note: of whom I am NOT one) are still paying the price for the inhuman catastrophes committed under that name by psychopath opportunists perceiving a mechanism for gaining power. 3. And the third point, people who are of superior intellect, including himself, and therefore excel in a particular field, CAN and do translate that intellectual capacity into other fields, because it is just that, general intellectual ability, measured(approximately), as he mentioned, by I.Q. That's why he's here, in this video, doing this interview, having written THIS BOOK... NOT on economics. Because he's a smart guy, who's not an idiot savant, and can therefore be smart outside of only economics, and indeed in any field to which he applies himself. The hypocrisy then, of implying that Chomsky is limited to only being of above average intelligence in the field of Linguistics, and should therefore confine himself to that field is rather astounding, given that he is, himself, not abiding by the same restriction. It is further astounding given that, unlike himself, Chomsky has spent far more time and made a far greater name for himself on the topics of Global Politics and U.S. Foreign Policy than he ever did in Linguistics. So, yeah, some really good points in there, that I didn't go over(I'm a contrarian), but also a few really silly, and intellectually blind-or-disingenuous ones.
You don't have to understand or agree with everything this man says (I certainly don't) to find him fascinating and engaging. I hope he remains active and on the scene for years to come.
School Boards often cannot resist appointing a "Dr." as a head teacher or head of faculty assuming that their higher degree involves knowledge of leadership, management, forward planning, interpersonal skills...etc or that these will be quickly acquired by an academic if this standard. Their intellectual achievements are raised above those which involve consequences the consequences of which are often quite grim or have to be compensated for by the staff surrounding that person.
It would be so much better if that Robinson guy was edited out. Sowell fans out there know that this Intellectuals and Society is just one of his many extensions of his first and best work, "Knowledge and Decisions."
I want to see him debate Chomsky on Economic Policy and debate Jason Brennan on Epistocracy (ie the question whether experts or "the crowd" should run the country)
Although short, this has to be the best I've heard from Sowell. I really disagreed with his position on the rolls royce fallacy, pretty much for the reason he mentioned at the end here. Wouldn't implementing a negative income tax achieve what he was recommending? I'm still waiting to hear one of these people acknowledge and talk about tax havens.
Yep, very smart astrophysicist and professional orator who ends up on my news feed every other day claiming something about religion, politics, climate change, economics
jester072 Know your pay grade, NdGT... you don't think economics is a real discipline... yet you claim to know how much GDP of not-your-money should be for space.
I'm a chef. So I'll put it in this way. Imagine a celebrity chef, we'll say Giada. Now the life of a chef is irreverent, sweaty, messy and one of constant struggle. Now could you see sexy ass Giada sweating it out in a kitchen for years and years, finally starting her own restaurant, making it a success while overseeing every tiny detail. While simultaneously cultivating a career as a television personality? Not damn likely. She's more likely a communications major or actress who had the look and the body and the ability to not light a kitchen on fire. That propelled her to where she is. So you can group all of these "celebrity " chefs into this group. Aside from Anthony Bourdain, who in my opinion is THE only celebrity chef worth watching. I've lived that life and I can tell from the way he walks and talks he's the real deal. In regards to Mr. Degrasse Tyson, do you think he's in a lab or manning a radio telescope, putting in the time consuming work people in his field do? Or is it possible that he's an entertainer who has an aptitude in science who had the look, voice and ability to stand in a science lab and not burn it down. And as I said, I'm a chef. We cook animals. Does that give me an ability to advise a farmer on how to tend his cows? And relatively does being an Astro physicist give Mr Tyson an expert voice in realms of global warming or gender studies?
I would not mind him dabbling in areas that are outside of his expertise aslong as he knows he is outside of it and makes claimes based on what experts know and say.
dnw009 Yes, he doesn't have authority on issues he isn't expert on. Similarly Bill Nye shouldn't talk about global warming as if he has authority on it, rather they should inform what majority of scientist in that particular field think. But still majority of people only care about things that are useful to them. They don't care that global warming is man made until it hurts them, which is why democracy is stupid idea. But it doesn't matter what celebrity tells them as long as science has authority over people's feelings.
One group, not thought smart or important by intellectuals are sales people. Their consequential knowledge is knowing who is willing to buy what. In sales, a computer, drug, shoe, truck or car sales person would never presume to know a market other than his own, even down to location.
Nirvan Sengupta he did a substantial amount of work on monetary history of the US, under Friedman and Schwartz. He wrote chapter 4 I believe which looks at the contraction of the monetary base in 1929, he basically diagnosed the Great Depression.
Nirvan Sengupta his end product is knowledge and is sold in the form of books, of which he’s written more than 30. You won’t have access to his product without investing your money and time into buying and actually reading any one of these. Or you can invest time and money into going to one of the schools he teaches at.
This video alone about Sowell explains so much on why our nation is in trouble. Because people believe someone with with a successful business is the right choice to lead the USA, or a graduate from an Ivy league school would make the best president. That's clear example of arrogance of intellectuals.
1:40 "The fatal misstep of intellectuals is assuming that superior ability within a particular realm can be generalised to superior wisdom or morality overall." [Thomas Sowell - Intellectuals and Society] Like when opponents of creationism turn their skills against psychology; deploying the mined quote of their traditional foe they lose credibility.
I agree with the main thesis of Sowell on the danger of intellectual arrogance, but Noam Chomsky's political work as far as I've seen and read always addresses Sowell's three questions of economic and political coherency: compared to what, of what evidence, and at what cost? Chomsky's views on America's roles in foreign affairs aren't absurd.
Mr Sowell is rare, because he's a very clever man that possesses commonsense. I just wish people like him would rule the West rather than the wankers we have at the moment.
Human knowledge is organic across all of humanity. I wish Tomas Sowell was my Dad, or my son. Or my brother. No wait, "brother" is racist. Seriously though, this guy is awesome, and apparently always has been.
He is a intellectual himself so this is quite ridiculous. Also I agree on the halo effect where people comment on what they don't understand, but the idea that you shouldn't go to experts is absurd. Should we trust plain inexperienced and uneducated people instead?
The premise of the argument seems to be that if people at the top of their field try to put there theories to the test by implementing policy based on their theories, that is arrogance. But then Sowell puts forth his own idea that policy should be created to his own prescription. How is Sowel not a being disingenuous and hypocritical. If not the people who have most distinguished themselves as having most rigorously evaluated knowledge available at the time, who will make decisions. What will be the basis of policy. Should we have some, ignoramus, who can't seem to site specific knowledge on any subject relevant to the economy, history, world affairs, diplomacy, or anything else relevant to creating policy be the one to create policy? What exactly is the alternative to having the most intelligent and thoughtful people in charge? Especially at this particular juncture in history, Isn't it painfully obvious how bad things can go wrong when we start to think we need unqualified "regular" people to run the country? If ideas are not put to the test and the results rigorously scrutinized then there will be no progress. With limited resources we should be inclined to seek out the people with the most well thought out ideas to put forth in our ongoing experiment in governance. Sowell sows the seeds of mistrust in intelligence. He is part of a movement that tries to challenge reality itself and base decisions on unchallenged beliefs. History will not look kindly at those who think as he does. There can be no lasting positive result from trying to dumb down the country and create mistrust in the institutions that have brought about the high standard of living we as a country have enjoyed. I personally want the best and the brightest at the helm.
A great example of intellectuals who mistakenly believe that their expertise in one area translated to expertise in others is the celebrity mathematician, Stephen Hawking, who wrote that "Philosophy is dead". Of course, if Philosophy is dead, then the phrase "Philosophy is dead" is itself dead. Oh, and his doctor of Philosophy degree is worthless.
Difference between Sowell and Chomsky is that Sowell does not have intellectual integrity and Chomsky has. Sowell would not dare to go against official doctrine of institution he get his paycheck from, e.g. Hoover & etc.
"The fatal misstep of intellectuals is assuming that superior ability within a particular realm can be generalized to superior wisdom and morality overall. Chess grandmasters... seldom make that mistake." - Except Gary Kasparov! haha
There is alot of truth in this but there are cases where listening to experts is a good idea. One being climate change, Sowell doesnt believe in that and as a consequence conservatives like him follow suit. Its ok to have opinions on other areas of live.
John Ervine I am willing to listen to climate scientists that do not support the politically motivated IPCC. Sowell is correct in his assessment, follow the money. Honesty and integrity don’t sell but promoting end of life Armageddon sure seems to. Have any dire climate predictions come true? Not even one!
Interesting how he echoes what socrates said nearly 2000 years ago about intellectuals thinking they know everything outside of their area of expertise. But how Sowell embodies this by not referring to Socrates as if what Socrates said was fact but actually pulling from real life examples to show the truth of this statement
Thomas sowell is a national treasure
I might be wrong, but are you posting this on every Sowell video you watch?
pretty much
Nice. Carry on.
You have to love the irony of an "intellectual" like Sowell claiming intellectuals are full of shit.
chewyismycopilot The difference is when people call themselves intellectuals and proclaim themselves experts vs OTHERS calling them experts. Did Thomas claim to be an intellectual??? Or are others simply recognizing that trait in him?
I am 61 and have just discovered Thomas Sowell. Someone once said, "when the student is ready the teacher will appear". That you Thomas, I pray I get to meet you some day or at least attend one of your speaking events.
I was recently lamenting to have only found Dr Thomas Sowell in my early 30's.. I hope you one day meet him as I wish to as well
Bill Nye needs to watch this.
IRQ1Conflict underrated comment, there is no excuse why this only has 4 likes.
He probably already did down past his nose but wouldnt care
sex and brain gender not the same
watching this would not change his worldview and religion.
People will be reading his work long after his death and remarking at how brilliant it is. Thomas Sowell is incredible.
Sowell is indeed an intellectual. But the difference between him and those he is talking about is the fact that he does not wish to impose his will on others. He also does not assume that just because he is smart he defacto has the authority to run other people lives. I love how people think they are smarter than this great man based on a 6 min video, go read a few of the 30 books he's written and then get back to me with these claims.
So, are people not allowed to criticize him because he is smart and you agree with his political views?
"But the difference between him and those he is talking about is the fact that he does not wish to impose his will on others."
By advocating for a particular political and economical ideology, he is in fact imposing his will on others.
@Jack Hack That is what every intellectual thinks and claims about his own ideas ;-)
And it is not 100% for anybody. Everybody has their biases. Some at least acknowledge them.
Btw this does not mean I do not highly respect Sowell
Only an idiot would think that advocating for a position is the same an imposing it upon others.
How do you "drown out" an ideology? Only by silencing those who hold it, by imprisoning or executing them. But it has been the consistent history of the Left to employ such tactics (think Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red China, Cuba, etc), not the Right, which is all about free speech and open exchange of ideas.
The French Revolution was like all other leftist revolutions; it executed in large numbers those who opposed it. It ignored its so-called Rights of Man, and ended in the Napoleonic dictatorship.
Those various regimes you mentioned as "right wing" were in fact not of the Right, but were just authoritarian governments that happened to be anti-communist. The true Right is all about small government and much individual liberty. Do not make the mistaken of thinking that all foreign despots supported by the US over they years were of the Right; many were not, they just happened to be anti-communist, so we backed them as better than the hard left alternatives (Batista in Cuba and Pinochet in Chile being two good examples of this pragmatic policy).
It is a sad fact of history that many people have had to suffer bad governments because there were no good alternatives available to them.
I love this man!! Can we multiply him and just put him in every school in every neighborhood in every town and city across this nation and then maybe our children will understand what education actually is.
If I could choose anyone in the world to spend an evening in conversation with it would be Thomas Sowell.
Thomas Sowell... should've been our first black president
I agree fully.
did you not watch the video he was literally explaining how just because someone is an intellectual or an expert doesn't mean they deserve to be in power
@@walltime1 no but he does. Not because of his intellect, but because of his heart.
Thomas Sowell is in his 80's. Is there anyone who will be able to carry his torch?
Check out TurdFlingingMonkey... many of his views on economics and social issues are influenced by Sowell's work.
Golden Freezer No, not women... cucks, Feminists, SJWs, and other social parasites.
Best argument for why Hollywood should stay out of politics. You're an actor. I go to the movies to watch you do what you're GOOD at.
Some of them aren't even good at that anymore.
Heavily disagree with that principle. 'Bad' politics should be tested and proven as such in discussion. If you restrict a group of individuals as being the only ones 'Good' at politics and to able to participate in it, you have e essentially set your political ground for an authoritarian regime.
@@isawthesun It isn't that they shouldnt be able to discuss politics or vote. The idea is that their social influence is disproportionate to their ability in a political domain. If an actor posts a post on instagram, he influences thousands, if not millions, of people. And if he does so despite not knowing what he is exactly talking about, because he is an actor and not a professional politican or philosopher or economist (depending on the political debate), he runs a high risk of saying something that perhaps sounds intuitively nice, or good, or moral, or whatever, but produces a catastrophe in reality.
We need Thomas more then ever.
Sowell is such a treasure....
The problem with intellectuals is that they are subject to a competitive environment as a way to achieve their status, and then due to the build up of ego needed to reach that point, they basically do not know how to operate without such an ego. And they make it their mission to prevent and deny other people the right to learn and reach that level. They are actually closed minded to the idea, because they want sole control over their domain, think of it as intellect capitalism. This presents a massive issue in society, because it stimulates stupidity and limits how many people can be respectfully regarded as experts on a given subject. Therefore you could spend your entire life on a topic, but if someone has better status than you, you will be shunned and treated like an amateur. This is mostly a fault of the system we have, but a large fault also has to befall on the individuals (intellects) that perpetuate such a system for their personal status and benefit at the cost of other people. The other large problem and issue is that should they become corrupted and bought out as has happened in the past with educational institutions. They basically serve interests outside of what they should serve. And such exploits have devastating results on society. And because they expect not to be questioned it gives rise to a type of intellectual Absolutism and/or Dictatorship. All very dangerous things that negatively affect the success of an unsuppressed and unexploited civilization. What we have is the workings of a oligarchical power structure that benefits from having a dumbed down society/population. And this culture is perpetuated by many intellectuals. That arrogance is simply unacceptable and there are exceptions. But not enough.
Thank You I'm finding a lot of great comments on this video
Thomas SoWell The People's Champ! The teller of truth!
"The people" being...?
Obviously not experts in automobile efficiency. lol. I'll take their advice about how to inflate my tires over Sowell any day. No small irony.
Tire inflation is nothing you need to take anyone's advice about. The manufacturer molded the specifications into the sidewall of the tire itself. So do some original research yourself in the right place. The truth is out there!
Hold on...I'm consulting experts on the trajectory of my point... somewhere way over your head.
+Iridescentsquids you're hardly the first person to miss their mark when attempting to make a point.
Have a nice day, Paul. And best of luck.
One of the greatest philosophers of our time.
Knowledge comes from knowing that you know nothing.......socrates
I believe the quote goes more along the lines of, "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." See, even you didn't know what you thought you did. Which is the point Socrates was trying to make.
good call haha i just couldn't be arsed typing the whole thing - the intelligent become arrogant and the idiots suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect of which more is written -
good on Mr Sowell for calling attention to the arrogance of intellectuals - we could call it the Sowell effect lol.
i believe Warren Buffet explains it well when he talks about how he doesn't understand Tech companies - so he sticks to what he knows - he calls it sticking to his circle of competence - haha and knowing he doesn't know it all seems to have worked for him :-)
reeve1able the beginning acknowledgement of the dunning krugger effect hahaha
It's called the "empty cup" or "humility"
You guys are aware that Plato, the one who actually wrote most things about Socrates since Socrates wrote nothing himself, is also the guy that wanted a kingdom governed by philosopher kings, basically the intelligentsia, and therefore is exactly the sort of guy Sowell is talking about here. Knowing to be humble or seeing it as a virtue, and actually being humble, are two very different things.
Overwhelming Truth
Can this man be president? I love him!!! Shared! 👍🏻👍🏻💙💙💙
Bill Nye is a good example of someone that has stepped outside his area of expertise. Honorary degrees don't add anything except ego for the recipient.
Hollywood actors too haha
i dont think every thing sowell says is right or true but i do really love his thoughts on things,like race economics etc.this man is a great human being.
Anti-intellectualism is on the rise. If you are an independent researcher whom does your best to approach things with skepticism and logic, kudos to you! You're all in dangerously low supply.
Mortem Rex SceptisismTm(tm)
Mortem Rex anti-intellectualism lol. I love how skeptics and logical people are anti intellectuals now. But it's the truth, intellectuals brand themselves as superiors simply because their only good is their imagination, but that doesn't make them smart, logical or correct.
Gabemando wtf are you even trying to say? Got me confused man.
Mortem Rex, How can you get confused by that? He was a clear and direct as it gets.
Alex König I was commending people who do their own research. Idk wtf this dude thinks I said, so perhaps people should fucking read before jumping the gun. That's what has got me confused. At no point did is say logical people are anti-intellectuals, so...
Brilliant man
Short and sweet. Props to the interviewer for asking such great questions.
great discussion, thanks for sharing.
Thomas Sowell is a national treasure but he is 86 years old, I hope there are people up and coming from the younger generations to take up his knowledge and ability to share it.
Hahaha I got an ad for vice with this video...
I think if I ever said anything to Mr. Sowell and he replied "Yes! Yes!" in enthusiastic concurrence I would then consider myself intellectual.
This man is a true western colossus. Calm, authoritative and so wise. No wonder we here in the UK never see him on our screens. No race hustling leftie-and truly dangerous to their house of cards. THANK YOU for putting him up-we here in England value your teaching, God Bless America-only the USA gives us men like this these days!
When is Dr Thomas Sowell going to visit us in London, England soon?
This title (and it being Tom) pulled me right in!!!
thomas sowell seems to be one of the rare people that actually use common sense in our crazy society. such a sharp and rational mind. sadly people like him almost never end up in positions of power.
Mr. Sowell you are truly a wise man ! I just love the logic and insight , truly rare in this " I feel " world . Nice to know there are still some " I think " people out there .
Cheers
That book reminds me of the quote from Albert Einstein stating
"If you cannot explain it simplistically, then you simply do not understand it."
A great interviewer interviewing a great scholar creates quite a remarkable 6 and a half minute video
Sowell is maybe the only man who could step down into the presidency.
I've been reading his columns for longer than I can remember, and he can make more sense in 300 words than most "intellectuals" can make in a lifetime.
I have heard that a truly intelligent person understands and recognizes the limits of what it is they know. In other words, they can accept and appreciate the truth of their limitations. Mr. Sowell is a wise, insightful, and gifted human. Thx
So many generalizations about "Intellectuals," which has been a far cry from my experience in education where I was exposed to perhaps as much conservative literature as I was liberal. That's the problem with anti-intellectualism, is that it closes people's minds off to what is often the best sources of knowledge, which is a formal education. Independent research is great, but if you haven't been trained on how to manage your own personal bias, then you'll find yourself living in a cacophony of common voices and now you're just another ideologue.
Except that self-proclaimed intellectuals are elitist and don't see when they're wrong and they keep themselves ignorant to the reality of their ideas' consequences either willingly or lack of comprehension on the matter. They view having formal education as proof of expertise. If you don't have a degree you don't know what you're talking about. That's the general misconception. This is why it's generally the self-proclaimed intellectuals that believe in the theory of communism, believing it's viable when reality says otherwise. It's also why it's generally the self-proclaimed intellectuals that have the "holier than thou" attitude and believe that [especially if they're in government] if you give more power to the government, then the problems will be solved. And this is despite the fact that government's caused most of the problems by interfering either too much or at all to begin with.
And the reason i say "if you don't have a degree then you don't know what you're talking about" is a widespread misconception is that it is also a logical fallacy. It's an argument from a position of authority and it implies that as long as you don't have a degree even if you've read the major papers that are the heart of the subject, that you don't know what you're talking about.
For example, i don't have a degree in constitutional law but all i need to do is break down the second amendment, include the definition of "infringe" bring in the 10th amendment, a clause in article 1 section 8, and a section of jurisprudence to prove that not only are weapons restrictions by government technically illegal, the ones in place are legal to ignore and any and all court rulings upholding them are not legitimate rulings.
But for something more simple i could use the 10th amendment and the constitutional convention to prove federal social welfare and many federal agencies as unconstitutional and therefore illegitimate. And even simpler i can prove that indefinite funding for the Army for longer periods than 2 years to be illegal as well with article 1 section 8 clause 12 which, along with the amendments i already mentioned, has NOT been overridden by a constitutional amendment meaning the relevant sections of the constitution are still legally absolute.
And with all of this i can prove that our entire government, on all levels, is no longer legitimate and that every official in every branch of government and at all levels is technically impeachable for high crimes and misdemeanors simply because of their lack of compliance with the constitution. In other words, were a civil war to break out today, the government would be the rebellion, not the people that rise against it.
If you want to get down to technicality.
It helps if you abstract all these individuals into "elitists" and then proceed to over generalize about the prejudices of a diverse group of people. Just because someone has expertise in an area, does not make them into some kind of elitist jerk who thinks only people like them know anything. Most people who consider themselves "intellectual" don't embrace communism, most are liberal humanists who would adopt a mixed economic approach rather than a completely socialist or laissez faire approach. We have a complex society with issues that need to be addressed, but we need to also realize that government intervention can be harmful when misapplied and create bureaucracies which can be hard to get rid of. The trick of liberalism is not try to reduce the state to the most minimal place possible, you want to get the government to a place where individual rights are protected and secure so that investment can proceed, but you also want to maintain essential stability which includes infrastructure, healthcare, utilities, law enforcement. Without such things, markets cannot exist and function in healthy ways, but we shouldn't just implement any "liberal" idea out of the sun, but well planned and responsibly funded projects that do their best to also incorporate the will and interests of the States. That's close to about how most "intellectuals" I have talked to have presented their belief about government and its purpose in society, beyond the more extreme leftist kind which aren't as common as I think it is portrayed on the internet.
it's why i stated "self-proclaimed" intellectuals, not ACTUAL intellectuals. However, in the US, a mix system at the state level is fine but many aspects of it at the federal level is technically illegal and if you go through the constitution, the prevailing arguments at the constitutional convention, and writings of many of the founders, it's very easy to glean what parts are legal federally and what parts are either not legal federally or not legal to be implemented by government period.
And what you're going on about is CLASSICAL liberalism, not American liberalism, there is a very clear difference.
Also, with the exception of providing minimum standards [and cost caps as current necessity dictates], government has no place being involved in healthcare. And with the exceptions of providing minimum standards, government has no place in the private sector at all.
And i tend to look at political ideas from a LEGAL standpoint and not a partisan one. And the majority of ideas for the federal level in which implementation is illegal come from the Left. Of course some come from the right like the Patriot Act or the AHCA or even NASA or having the Air Force as a stand-alone military branch. When looking from a legal standpoint i'll shoot down EVERY idea that is currently illegal, informing the one who proposed it that changes to the constitution would have to be made to allow for it or, with most of them, have them implemented at the state level.
"It's far easier to concentrate power than..."very true
"when you take the power out of their hands, and give it back to the market [everything goes better]" wow good thing this guy is looking out for us, Bob! Let the market handle things coz these darn intellectuals are up to something.
My mom held me out of school until I was 7, I couldn't wait to go and it was great. She got me up early the next to take me back and I told her her " but Mom I already did that" and I went fishing. Common sense matters most.
Did anyone count how many times the interviewer held up the book?
ConstantineAtByron 4 times.
Lol. He always holds up the book a lot. Every interview with every person.
Two kinds of people in the world. Those that get it, and those that do not. He definitely gets it.! Great man.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes... He said it himself. Don't make that mistake. Sowell's views are not one entity. It is many. You can agree on some of his points, while disagreeing on others. Or you can agree on a point, while disagreeing with the solution. Whatever. So there are more than two types of people. Don't make him into this "god" you either understand, or don't understand.
Sowell makes a similar argument to Nassim Nicholas Taleb's idea of "skin in the game"
There are some valid points in this, such as about the market generating better economic results for itself than central planners are able to achieve. But some of his other points...
1. First of all, it should be mentioned that if "Intellectuals" is defined as people who step out side their fields of expertise to weigh in on unrelated subjects, OR as people whose end product is ideas, then Thomas Sowell qualifies by both of those metrics.
2. Intellectuals do pay a price when their ideas fail, roughly equivalent to the price an engineer pays if his building collapses. In both cases, the price is one of reputation: prestige, professional credential, and social standing. The difference is that a building plan can be tested by building the building, and we build those constantly. A big idea involving changing society in some way gets tested once or twice per century, so we rarely get the sorts of test results that can disprove such an idea.
I think he's referring to Marxism is the tested idea whose proponents sill exist in abundance and whom he perceives has not having paid a price. Two problems with that: one they have paid, and continue to pay, some price for those failed experiments. And two, their position is that the test was faulty, as it most certainly was. It doesn't meet the standards to which we would hold any other empirical test. To roughly the same degree that it could be called the social experiment of the 20'th Century, call it "faulty" may be the "understatement of the 20'th Century."
It was psychotic maniacs, no exaggeration, setting up dictatorships of terror and genocide, with fully centralized power, laughably, really laughably calling it Marxism or Communism(which is about the diffusion of power, democratically, to the people) to dupe the masses into signing up like sheep for the slaughter and slavery.
And actual Marxists(Note: of whom I am NOT one) are still paying the price for the inhuman catastrophes committed under that name by psychopath opportunists perceiving a mechanism for gaining power.
3. And the third point, people who are of superior intellect, including himself, and therefore excel in a particular field, CAN and do translate that intellectual capacity into other fields, because it is just that, general intellectual ability, measured(approximately), as he mentioned, by I.Q. That's why he's here, in this video, doing this interview, having written THIS BOOK... NOT on economics. Because he's a smart guy, who's not an idiot savant, and can therefore be smart outside of only economics, and indeed in any field to which he applies himself.
The hypocrisy then, of implying that Chomsky is limited to only being of above average intelligence in the field of Linguistics, and should therefore confine himself to that field is rather astounding, given that he is, himself, not abiding by the same restriction.
It is further astounding given that, unlike himself, Chomsky has spent far more time and made a far greater name for himself on the topics of Global Politics and U.S. Foreign Policy than he ever did in Linguistics.
So, yeah, some really good points in there, that I didn't go over(I'm a contrarian), but also a few really silly, and intellectually blind-or-disingenuous ones.
You don't have to understand or agree with everything this man says (I certainly don't) to find him fascinating and engaging. I hope he remains active and on the scene for years to come.
It seems like the most wanting element in intellectuals is moral wisdom, which is exemplified (in its initial presentation at least) by humility.
Sewell is humbly brilliant, while being both aware and accepting of his limitations.
The separation is between educated/uneducated, not experts at all.
0:28 These examples weren't ignorance, they were malevolence
School Boards often cannot resist appointing a "Dr." as a head teacher or head of faculty assuming that their higher degree involves knowledge of leadership, management, forward planning, interpersonal skills...etc or that these will be quickly acquired by an academic if this standard. Their intellectual achievements are raised above those which involve consequences the consequences of which are often quite grim or have to be compensated for by the staff surrounding that person.
It would be so much better if that Robinson guy was edited out.
Sowell fans out there know that this Intellectuals and Society is just one of his many extensions of his first and best work, "Knowledge and Decisions."
6:32 Yes!
Sowell is just a great man.
sowell just said something similar to FA Hayek, and I couldn't agree more
long story short, "intelligence is dangerous without wisdom".
Genius.
I want to see him debate Chomsky on Economic Policy and debate Jason Brennan on Epistocracy (ie the question whether experts or "the crowd" should run the country)
Anyone has a link to the full video?
Eddy Darell ua-cam.com/video/ERj3QeGw9Ok/v-deo.html
One of few blacks that can't be called a bigger.
Although short, this has to be the best I've heard from Sowell. I really disagreed with his position on the rolls royce fallacy, pretty much for the reason he mentioned at the end here. Wouldn't implementing a negative income tax achieve what he was recommending? I'm still waiting to hear one of these people acknowledge and talk about tax havens.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson comes to mind.
Yep, very smart astrophysicist and professional orator who ends up on my news feed every other day claiming something about religion, politics, climate change, economics
jester072 Know your pay grade, NdGT... you don't think economics is a real discipline... yet you claim to know how much GDP of not-your-money should be for space.
I'm a chef. So I'll put it in this way. Imagine a celebrity chef, we'll say Giada. Now the life of a chef is irreverent, sweaty, messy and one of constant struggle. Now could you see sexy ass Giada sweating it out in a kitchen for years and years, finally starting her own restaurant, making it a success while overseeing every tiny detail. While simultaneously cultivating a career as a television personality? Not damn likely.
She's more likely a communications major or actress who had the look and the body and the ability to not light a kitchen on fire. That propelled her to where she is. So you can group all of these "celebrity " chefs into this group. Aside from Anthony Bourdain, who in my opinion is THE only celebrity chef worth watching. I've lived that life and I can tell from the way he walks and talks he's the real deal.
In regards to Mr. Degrasse Tyson, do you think he's in a lab or manning a radio telescope, putting in the time consuming work people in his field do? Or is it possible that he's an entertainer who has an aptitude in science who had the look, voice and ability to stand in a science lab and not burn it down.
And as I said, I'm a chef. We cook animals. Does that give me an ability to advise a farmer on how to tend his cows? And relatively does being an Astro physicist give Mr Tyson an expert voice in realms of global warming or gender studies?
I would not mind him dabbling in areas that are outside of his expertise aslong as he knows he is outside of it and makes claimes based on what experts know and say.
dnw009 Yes, he doesn't have authority on issues he isn't expert on. Similarly Bill Nye shouldn't talk about global warming as if he has authority on it, rather they should inform what majority of scientist in that particular field think.
But still majority of people only care about things that are useful to them. They don't care that global warming is man made until it hurts them, which is why democracy is stupid idea. But it doesn't matter what celebrity tells them as long as science has authority over people's feelings.
One group, not thought smart or important by intellectuals are sales people. Their consequential knowledge is knowing who is willing to buy what. In sales, a computer, drug, shoe, truck or car sales person would never presume to know a market other than his own, even down to location.
Thomas Sowell gives advice. The government imposes their will on you through experts. Most whom have a vested interest in keeping their job!
simple terms: if the system aint broke, dont try to fix it
I worship this guy. Too bad he can't be cloned.
Similar to Nassim Nicholas Taleb's 'Intellectuals yet Idiots'
What is Thomas Sowell's end product?
Nirvan Sengupta he did a substantial amount of work on monetary history of the US, under Friedman and Schwartz. He wrote chapter 4 I believe which looks at the contraction of the monetary base in 1929, he basically diagnosed the Great Depression.
Ideas then essentially. But that's not to say it's ironic or hypocritical. Just self-aware.
His end product is pure logic. What else could you ask for?
Nirvan Sengupta his end product is knowledge and is sold in the form of books, of which he’s written more than 30. You won’t have access to his product without investing your money and time into buying and actually reading any one of these. Or you can invest time and money into going to one of the schools he teaches at.
Mr Pot, let me introduce you to Mr Sowell.
This video alone about Sowell explains so much on why our nation is in trouble. Because people believe someone with with a successful business is the right choice to lead the USA, or a graduate from an Ivy league school would make the best president. That's clear example of arrogance of intellectuals.
1:40 "The fatal misstep of intellectuals is assuming that superior ability within a particular realm can be generalised to superior wisdom or morality overall." [Thomas Sowell - Intellectuals and Society] Like when opponents of creationism turn their skills against psychology; deploying the mined quote of their traditional foe they lose credibility.
Christopher Hitchens is Amazing, but Sowell is, if possible even greater !
0:51 1:18 4:30
I agree with the main thesis of Sowell on the danger of intellectual arrogance, but Noam Chomsky's political work as far as I've seen and read always addresses Sowell's three questions of economic and political coherency: compared to what, of what evidence, and at what cost? Chomsky's views on America's roles in foreign affairs aren't absurd.
It's the opposite tbh.
How does a theoretical physicist fit into to this?
Bobby Fischer held pretty firm political views...
Wasn't he an anti semite?
but hurt intellectuals if you scroll down.
Mr Sowell is rare, because he's a very clever man that possesses commonsense.
I just wish people like him would rule the West rather than the wankers we have at the moment.
0:55 'who's end products are ideas' = there's your Sam Harris for you young people
Human knowledge is organic across all of humanity. I wish Tomas Sowell was my Dad, or my son. Or my brother. No wait, "brother" is racist.
Seriously though, this guy is awesome, and apparently always has been.
Your arguement is either good or bad.. i dont care who you are when it comes to politics.. thats the line for me
He is a intellectual himself so this is quite ridiculous.
Also I agree on the halo effect where people comment on what they don't understand, but the idea that you shouldn't go to experts is absurd. Should we trust plain inexperienced and uneducated people instead?
Think he means James Flynn?? University of Otago Nz :)
The premise of the argument seems to be that if people at the top of their field try to put there theories to the test by implementing policy based on their theories, that is arrogance. But then Sowell puts forth his own idea that policy should be created to his own prescription. How is Sowel not a being disingenuous and hypocritical. If not the people who have most distinguished themselves as having most rigorously evaluated knowledge available at the time, who will make decisions. What will be the basis of policy. Should we have some, ignoramus, who can't seem to site specific knowledge on any subject relevant to the economy, history, world affairs, diplomacy, or anything else relevant to creating policy be the one to create policy? What exactly is the alternative to having the most intelligent and thoughtful people in charge? Especially at this particular juncture in history, Isn't it painfully obvious how bad things can go wrong when we start to think we need unqualified "regular" people to run the country? If ideas are not put to the test and the results rigorously scrutinized then there will be no progress. With limited resources we should be inclined to seek out the people with the most well thought out ideas to put forth in our ongoing experiment in governance. Sowell sows the seeds of mistrust in intelligence. He is part of a movement that tries to challenge reality itself and base decisions on unchallenged beliefs. History will not look kindly at those who think as he does. There can be no lasting positive result from trying to dumb down the country and create mistrust in the institutions that have brought about the high standard of living we as a country have enjoyed. I personally want the best and the brightest at the helm.
Your mistake is that you think we NEED someone to run the economy. We don't!
A great example of intellectuals who mistakenly believe that their expertise in one area translated to expertise in others is the celebrity mathematician, Stephen Hawking, who wrote that "Philosophy is dead". Of course, if Philosophy is dead, then the phrase "Philosophy is dead" is itself dead. Oh, and his doctor of Philosophy degree is worthless.
Difference between Sowell and Chomsky is that Sowell does not have intellectual integrity and Chomsky has. Sowell would not dare to go against official doctrine of institution he get his paycheck from, e.g. Hoover & etc.
Pretty sure he used "whom" wrong.
I often enjoy these two conversations. I wish they were Bible believing Christians tho.
Pot meet kettle.
I wish i had a bit of his intelligence.
"The fatal misstep of intellectuals is assuming that superior ability within a particular realm can be generalized to superior wisdom and morality overall. Chess grandmasters... seldom make that mistake." - Except Gary Kasparov! haha
Noam Chomsky's political writings are an absurdity? Why would he say that?
in short, nerds want to teach the football team to be better at sports
So consequences are necessary
There is alot of truth in this but there are cases where listening to experts is a good idea. One being climate change, Sowell doesnt believe in that and as a consequence conservatives like him follow suit. Its ok to have opinions on other areas of live.
John Ervine I am willing to listen to climate scientists that do not support the politically motivated IPCC. Sowell is correct in his assessment, follow the money. Honesty and integrity don’t sell but promoting end of life Armageddon sure seems to. Have any dire climate predictions come true? Not even one!
the truth is noone knows shit
Says the guy who stepped outside of economics to talk about race relations
isn't the great thomas sowell an intellectual?
lysol5555 Yes, just not an arrogant intellectual.
It's up to you.
Did you notice when the dude on the right pick his book up he covered half Thomas first name it says as sowell ass hole. Good video tho.
Interesting how he echoes what socrates said nearly 2000 years ago about intellectuals thinking they know everything outside of their area of expertise. But how Sowell embodies this by not referring to Socrates as if what Socrates said was fact but actually pulling from real life examples to show the truth of this statement
Uneducated people can be quite as arrogant or even worse. Empty cans make more sounds.