People who like to hear political agenda specific rants
There was no story - and even though I am a political conservative, I don't care to hear conservative rants that are not well backed up... or interesting
Disliked most everything about it.
Everything after the first three chapters
mind numbing - simply the worst!
To be able to hear Thomas Sowell's idea. Tom Weiner made me believe that he was Sowell.
I really like the large variety that can be found in Audible. From light fiction, science fiction to serious non-fiction titles.
I may to try to broaden my stances but this book for my liking wasn't what I was looking for.
The most interesting thing and the least interesting thing end up being the same because the same thing he is saying intellectuals do, he is doing himself.
Yes it did.
The book isn't bad although a very rightly slanted view.
I wish I could absorb and retain all the great arguments and clear analysis in this book. It captures all of the nonsense you hear on the news, that falls out of the mouths of politicians, activists, and pundits - and explains quickly and clearly why they are wrong. A very entertaining and enlightening read.
Before I downloaded this book I read reviews from readers and thought they were biased. It should have been a clue that the only good reviews came from people that actually felt inspired to "look up words" as a result of this book.
I wish I could say something good about it. Maybe, maybe, his analysis of the pre-war France has some redeeming value, but you can get that somewhere else without having to suffer through the rest of the book.
The rest of the book is a long rant against 'the anointed," which would be all the leftist intellectuals that he does not agree with. He makes generalized assertions about what other people think and believe, why they believe it, without any supporting evidence. He talks at length about misinformation and evidence that is being ignored, forgetting to present much more than generalized ball-park statistics you'd get on Wikipedia. There was one instance of 'evidence' he presented in his book to show how the intellectuals misinform the public: he actually used national averages of crime rates to dismiss arguments based on local averages of crime rates. Hello, statistics 101: you can't do that! It's apples and oranges.
Anyone with a college degree would be one of the anointed and very dangerous to all living things. Slavery, racism, domestic violence, the horrors of the Vietnam war (yes, he argues that the war should have been fought until victory was achieved, whatever that meant, and victory was possible - sound familiar?), poverty, all that are merely inventions of the anointed. They were not all that bad!
It's rediculous that he does not even bother (probably because he has no clue) with the empirical branches of the disciplines he disparages. The validation of their theories do come from actual empirical evidence, which I wished the author knew how to interpret. I suppose theoretical physics and mathematics is similarly useless per his definition.
I needed to slow the replay rate down. However, there was an annoying echo in the slower speed that wasn't noticeable in the normal playback. The information was rich and well sorted.
If you want to listen to a book about bad things intellectuals say, this is for you. If you want to listen to a book about the effect of intellectuals on society, this is not for you.
I picked this book up because my first reaction was "oh, they're not important," and the spine says he thinks they are. He then proceeds to critique intellectualism, rather than show its import.
It's not really about "how" intellectuals influence society, it's about the annoying things lefties say and why they're annoying and why they've been wrong. Fine. So what?
Nothing in this book says a thing about whether the bad influence of intellectuals is (1) abnormal, (2) solvable, (3) important, or (4) anything else. Nor does he show how his arguments are peculiar to intellectuals - for example, he points out that lots of intellectuals supported Hitler. This is true. How many? Were there more or fewer intellectuals among his supporters than non-intellectuals? That he critiques this intellectual lapse in others and then indulges in it undermines his credibility.
When he defines intellectuals, he's very consistent (people who trade in ideas as an occupation), but he does not enforce that consistency throughout the book. You hear the definition at the beginning and end, and it's never mentioned in the middle. He has some strange lacunae in his thought regarding intellectuals - For example, he never says that economists are intellectuals, yet sometimes he says that intellectuals need to study more economics, and other times he calles Keynes and Galbraith (lefty economists) intellectuals. Similarly, it's very unclear whether he considers judges intellectuals.
This book would be the unintelligent, Ditto heads and people who believe anything on Fox news.
Absolutely, the reading is horrible.
He makes good points about not trusting the common wisdom and to verify the source of conventional thought.
This book is merely a rant by a rightwing biased intellectual.
He makes good points about not trusting the common wisdom and to verify the source of conventional thought. Unfortunately the Author fails to apply those standards to his own work. Maybe the physical book as end notes but as an audio book it isn’t possible to verify his assertions.
The reading is horrible.
I'm a lawyer and mediator. I represent businesses in disputes with their insurers and in other complex litigation. I also assist machinery companies and manufacturers (primarily international) with equipment sales, non-disclosure agreements, and business issues. I also mediate commercial disputes.
Thomas Sowell is one of America's greatest thinkers and this book is a great achievement. Sowell makes the case that, throughout history, we have been led into disaster again and again by intellectuals who think that they know everything. Sowell makes the point that the smartest person in the world can know only a fraction of what there is to know about everything. Yet intellectuals believe that because of their ability to know one subject and their ability grasp basic concepts in others, combined with their "verbal virtuosity" (their ability to communicate in a glib manner better than those who really are experts about particular subjects), they should be able to tell the rest of us what to do. Sowell proves that, again and again, this approach has led to disaster after disaster. Sowell's observations are particularly apt in the age of the nanny state, when lifetime politicians in Washington -- with very little experience about anything in the real world -- are constantly forcing rules and policies down our throats. Although it is not a central theme for his book, Sowell really makes the case that "the government that governs least governs best." Anyone who would challenge Sowell's observations had better bring their "A game." This should be required reading for anyone who believes government knows best, or who would undertake to impose their views on others. We are living in very scary times, and this book illustrates in great detail why we all should be very afraid.
I tried to read this book because it is good mental hygiene to read authors you don't agree with, at least when their views are based on facts and sound reasoning. But this book is just pure ideology and the author does obviously not apply to himself the standards of verification and unbiased judgment that he exacts from the intellectual class at large.