75 Comments

Thomas Sowell wrote a lot about culture and group differences, including a book proposing intriguing theory of the origin of Black culture in America. This is probably his most lasting scholarly contribution. Prior to the CRT craze, I sometimes wondered why was he so focused on this topic that was not at all central to the discussion for long periods. Sowell also wrote a very good book about late-talking children. I once came across Pinker marveling at the breadth of topics Sowell covered. Finally, like George Washington, Sowell said few things that are entirely unpalatable to your readers. This, too, helped push his score up.

Expand full comment

And giving Sowell extra credit for the strength of character he has shown, in expressing views that he knew would bring down extra abuse upon him because of his race, is not properly thought of as "affirmative action."

Expand full comment

A lot of it might be that it's hard to dislike Thomas Sowell. So even if most of Hanani's readers have a higher opinion of person X than of Sowell, if Sowell is good enough to get a 5 but X is polarizing, Sowell gets a higher score.

Expand full comment

Pleasantly surprised to see you agreeing with me on animal suffering being bad, eating insects depending on animal suffering. Nice that other conservative/libertarian people agree with this. I guess since you are autistic and rationalist-adjacent it shouldn't be *too* surprising.

Expand full comment

Actually, I was surprised Richard cares about insects (potentially) suffering, given his aesthetic preferences and how much they mean to him. Insects?! Really? Taking seriously the question of the moral value of bugs is a symptom of the larger moral collapse in society.

Expand full comment

I object to suffering as a metric of morality. That is just hedonism.

I know pigs feel pain and I have no moral objection to eating them.

Expand full comment

Lol, imagine being convinced there is no God but also worried about the morality of eating insects. This is why "rationalists" are so frustrating. If you're so convinced of materialism why waste so many keystrokes on an pointless, invented morality? Like, you're going to die. The universe will die. Even if the hardcore transhumanists get their wish and "upload their consciousness to machines" (ironically, implying mind-body dualism) they'll still cease to function one day. Doesn't really matter if it's tomorrow or 22 billion years really. Dead is dead, a chasing after the wind.

But thank you for your contribution to fighting wokeness, our common enemy.

Expand full comment
author

Well, according to my understanding of the theory of relativity, which admittedly is very limited, there is no absolute difference between the past and the future and every moment exists forever.

Expand full comment

That would be some humanities major getting it wrong, and you trusting them too much.

Time definitely goes "forward" in relativity. (Ph.D. in Engineering from Stanford.)

Expand full comment

"It is certain that the mortality or immortality of the soul must make an entire difference to morality. And yet the philosophers construct their ethics independently of this; they talk to pass an hour."

- Blaise Pascal

I generally agree. If you're going to agonize over arcane moral questions, then accept Christ and at least agonize over doing the Lord's will. If you're going to reject the free offer of the gospel, then do the honest thing and recognize that all of atheistic moral philosophy is really just psychological self-management, and if you're still agonizing over the feelings of insects, you're self-managing incorrectly.

Expand full comment

The question wasn't "Are you worried about the morality of eating insects?" It was a question of whether the morality of insects depends on the suffering they could experience, which is obvious. You shouldn't torture things for your personal pleasure. I take that as obvious as a vegan Christian. I see nothing in the Bible that allows eating things if that means you have to torture them (as you do when you buy meat and dairy of which the overwhelming majority is from factory farms).

I don't know why you think morality is pointless and invented given "materialism." Most sophisticated moral realists, materialist or not, think torturing innocent children is wrong regardless of how you think or feel (or how God thinks or feels), so they are doing nothing inconsistent. It's also unclear how children dying or me dying one day gives you the right to torture them.

Expand full comment

Transhumanism no more implies mind-body dualism than the fact that I can transfer software from one computer to another implies that there is 'mind-body dualism' between software and hardware. And why would the existence of God imply morality? Even most theists accept that God has no morals for any other species but our own. I see no reason to believe an omniscient and omnipotent God would care any more about our sex lives than he would about those of chimpanzees or squirrels.

Expand full comment

It's circular. If you're just data then you aren't "you" but just data. And sure the data can be copied and deleted from here to there. But tranhumanists posit they exist and can be moved from body to machine. Like the old teleportation anecdote where an earlier prototype "teleports" a guy across the room but instead of disappearing the original copy is still standing there confused. The technician goes "oops" and shoots him. Sorry, you're dead and a copy of your data is stored somewhere else unless you are real and can be "moved". Either way all the bodies will die and the machines will stop working at some point according to most of cosmology.

Expand full comment

If all 'you' are is an electrochemical state located in your brain, then the desire to continue living (for that electrochemical state to exist in the future) is as irrational as wanting to copy it. The copy of you will have the experience of being you every bit as much as the you that will exist in a year will, and the you that exists now will be as dead as the 'original' in the copying example. The reality of continuous personal identity itself is debatable at best under materialist worldview. I assume a rationalist would say the desire to perpetuate this state that is 'you' whether by not dying or by copying it is as valid as any, if 'you' likes existing.

Expand full comment

Fun stuff. My position is that people will always want government to do stuff, addicted to it like drugs. A party that promises stuff will always win. So libertarianism will never happen. Sorry. Your choice is between the party of no abortion or the party of chop your kid's dick off. Pretty easy choice for me.

Expand full comment

Sad to see Abraham Lincoln so high. This man started a war that murderer hundreds of thousands of people. And he was very clear about the fact that he was not doing it to end slavery.

He's no Hitler, but I would have expected Hanania to have a large enough libertarian following to bring Lincoln's ratings down a bit.

Expand full comment
Aug 11, 2022·edited Aug 11, 2022

Even granting that all you say is true, the simple fact of the matter is that no man did more to break the back of the Confederacy, and those guys had to go.

Expand full comment

Joe is majorly underselling Lincoln. Even with the South unable to vote in his re-election campaign, Lincoln very easily could have lost by prolonging the war and was arguably spared defeat by a timely major victory that spelled the wars end. It’s true that Lincoln’s priority was preserving the Union, but he kept the war going longer than he needed to for that purpose— had he been willing to give up on freeing the slaves, he could have brokered peace sooner.

Expand full comment
RemovedAug 11, 2022·edited Aug 11, 2022
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Why do you like Omar?

Expand full comment

>Your fourth favorite thing in the universe is apparently Thomas Sowell. I like him too, but does he really deserve to be that high, right before Adam Smith, who said many of the same things but 200 years earlier? Are you sure that you’re not practicing affirmative action in your hearts and souls, despite how supposedly anti-woke you are? If I were black, would you not rank me higher? Look into the mirror and ask yourselves the tough questions.

I love you, Richard, but you're underselling Sowell. He's the most relevant intellectual on that list today and probably the most ahead of his time. Maybe that's because he's allowed to write on topics because he's black.

Expand full comment

Biggest surprise is Bryan Caplan all the way down at #25. Who doesn't like Bryan Caplan?

Expand full comment
Aug 11, 2022·edited Aug 11, 2022Liked by Richard Hanania

I'm pretty tepid on him. Anyone who supports open borders is sus, and I'm even saltier about him in particular because he got me to agree with the position when I first encountered his arguments defending it when I was a teenager. Liking Ayn Rand is also a major negative.

On the other hand, I really like his work on education and appreciate his willingness to say unpopular things, even when I happen to disagree with them. iirc I gave him a 3.

Edit: Introducing me to pro-natalism was pretty based, even if I needed other sources to convince me of it. He at the very least planted a seed that ended with me having five kids (so far). Maybe he should've been a 4.

Expand full comment
Aug 11, 2022·edited Aug 11, 2022

I first heard of Caplan on a Coleman Hughes podcast a long while back on an episode about his case for open borders. I had a knee-jerk reaction to the title and refused to even listen to the episode.

But I eventually came across his work on education and pro-natalism which I found to be interesting and helpful in forming some of my views on both subjects. And he didn't seem insane in a few podcast episodes I decided to check out, including one with Hanania, so I revisited his immigration stuff. I now begrudgingly accept some of his arguments about the economic benefits and whatnot, though I'm still very much at odds with him on much about the issue.

Expand full comment

You have five kids but are young enough to have read Caplan on immigration as a teenager. Sorry to ask, but how old are you?

Expand full comment

I'm 36. Kids are 6, 5, 3, 1, and -6 months. Can still remember encountering Caplan on immigration in EconLog while he was blogging in advance of publishing Myth of the Rational Voter. Found the argument persuasive then and can still see the appeal for people with an economic/autistic mindset.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Caplan's a more prolific poaster of cawntent. Less of LKY's stuff is easily accessible.

Expand full comment

"Yes, I wish to clone myself and raise the baby as my son. Seriously. I want to experience

the sublime bond I’m sure we’d share. I’m confident that he’d be delighted, too, because I would love to be raised by me."

Perhaps this will help you understand why some people might have some reservations.

Expand full comment

tbh sounds pretty based

human cloning is good, people should be more autistic

Cloning von Neuamnn would be great

Expand full comment

No.

Expand full comment

That's kinda weird but what's actually wrong with it?

Expand full comment

If you don't like controversial statements, why are you reading Hanania? In this column he defends Robert E Lee and Harvey Weinstein...

Expand full comment

Anti-immigration people, mostly. I can see the argument for more or less but *open borders*...get out of here. Him and Yglesias. I don't want one billion Americans. Even if we could handle that level of crowding (and I like New York, but I know most of the country doesn't want to live there) you don't triple a nation's population without causing major problems.

Expand full comment

The population tripled in the past 100 years. And if it triples again, the US population density will be around that of present-day Ohio.

Anyways I get your point. But I thought Hanania's readers would appreciate Caplan airing controversial opinions, given that we just saw Hanania defend Harvey Weinstein and Robert E Lee!

Expand full comment

I was about to say something about his speaking voice being annoying but then I went and listened to him in a video again and realized it's just his regional accent and I shouldn't have ranked him lower for that.

Expand full comment

> I’m an absolutist on this question. The right response to an employer mistreating you should be the same as the response to a friend or lover mistreating you: find someone else.

If someone is sexually harassing you, they should be fired. I agree with "innocent until proven guilty," even in private, non-court based affairs. But that obviously doesn't mean everyone is eternally innocent. When I think of sexual harassment, I include everything from groping someone's breasts without their consent - which should obviously mean legal punishments - and catcalling.

You could make the case that catcalling shouldn't be legally punishable even if it's a jerk thing to do and should get you fired (like cussing someone out). Fine. But there should obviously be laws against involuntary groping from bosses - or anyone for that matter. Being anti-sexual assault is being pro-freedom of association. Maybe you meant things like catcalling and people were thinking in broader terms like sexual assault and that's what skewed the data.

> Most of you believe that someone who rapes and murders a child should be treated humanely at taxpayer expense until natural death

The death penalty is more expensive as far as I am aware.

> When I’ve debated others on the death penalty, the first thing people bring up is usually the possibility of wrongful convictions. I always point out that’s a problem with life in prison too

Yes, but one is different than the other. Imagine you have two buttons and 100 convicted criminals in front of you where the court has decided that the death penalty would be sufficient punishment for them. They've been convicted of terrible crimes.

For some reason, you are given the choice of what to do with them. Of the two buttons in front of you, one button kills them all and the other puts them in jail for life. However, it is known that a few of them have been falsely convicted. No one knows who exactly, but it's probably somewhere from 2 to 5 of them.

Should you slaughter them all or send them to jail? It's fairly clear to me that they should be sent to jail. The innocent people probably want to live, and you should respect their wishes. You may argue that jail is worse; but regardless, you should respect the wishes of the innocent even if you would prefer to be killed yourself. Also, you have to suffer for ages on death row anyway awaiting your death. Further, you claim to be tough on crime, so if life in prison is worse, you should prefer that.

> Yes, you can go back and undo the damage of a life sentence in theory, but you might not! If the only thing you care about is reducing false positives and not punishing innocent people, you can’t have a criminal justice system at all.

The first sentence is a non-response. They might not be found innocent later, yes. That's why your opponents say "might." It's better that they have a chance.

Who said it's the only think we care about? It's a major thing we should care about, obviously. That's why we have an innocent until proven guilty system. It's worse to put an innocent person behind bars than to fail to convict a guilty person. That's how rights work. If someone is 51% likely to be guilty, you shouldn't imprison them.

> I’m also more anti-crime than my readers, favoring the death penalty, shooting fleeing felons

Shooting fleeing felons is absurd. Are they murderers who will likely murder if they "flee?" Then yeah, you could shoot them. Maybe you meant this, but that's hard to believe as I would expect you to know the difference. Any other person? That's obviously wrong. They should be given due process of law. It's called proportionate, retributive justice where innocence is presumed until guilt is established. I have no idea why aside from emotional reactions you would want this. You say you like it for aesthetic reasons, so I guess I can't expect you to think rationally about this.

Edit: there may be more to respond to here, but that's all I will do for now.

Expand full comment

In your first point, I believe he's talking about harassment, not assault, which is already illegal everywhere, not just in the workplace. The point is whether your employer should fire you is up to your employer, not the government. It's a voluntary relationship. If a woman's boyfriend says something sexist, the government doesn't make her break up with him; nor should it make an employer fire someone for saying something sexist or whatever. If it's not criminal, then it's between consenting adults; if you don't like the way your boss is treating you, quit. If it's worth the salary to put up with, don't. It's your cost benefit analysis to make, just like deciding whether to stop seeing a significant other or friend over something they say.

"You could make the case that catcalling shouldn't be legally punishable..."

Making catcalling legally punishable is a ridiculous idea, appropriately unconstitutional in the US.

Expand full comment

I’m surprised Bryan Caplan is so low on your reader rankings. I guess the normie objection to Caplan is his open borders policy but it’s really for me to find anything that I actually disagree with him on. Maybe too soft on criminals and drug users?

Expand full comment

Advocating for the destruction of civilization, even if unintentionally, is a pretty big black mark.

Expand full comment

Even where I disagree with you, most of your views are self consistent - what I don't understand is how you can believe in racial group differences in IQ, and also Koch/Caplan style open borders. Doesn't add up for me

Expand full comment
author

Caplan has written about how you can accept group differences and favor open borders, though I'm not as extreme on immigration as him.

Expand full comment

The projected population of Africa is ~ 4 billion in 2100. With open borders, essentially people will immigrate in from Africa until US is not much better than Africa. Why shouldnt they?

I haven't seen anyone make a good answer to this, not even Caplan

I write about this here:

https://heterodoxthinking.substack.com/p/open-borders-the-case-against

Expand full comment

Caplan’s argument is that the US would be more like apartheid South Africa. Being an American would be like being a white South African during apartheid. Even with all of these African laborers if we didn’t let them vote and didn’t give them entitlements we would do very well and rule over these people. The system would be more benevolent than apartheid SA - no government-mandated racial segregation, just voluntarily employment by white and Asian owned corporations.

It’s an interesting idea but one that is just so politically unviable in this day and age.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Yeah. It works in the UAE (so far), but there is no democracy there. America, or even a more based democracy like Israel or Japan, could never pull it off.

Expand full comment

I think this failure mode is a peculiarly libertarian thing, and it's not just open borders:

"This idea, while sufficient to cause the collapse of civilization under present conditions, would work very well if it were implemented into my imagined utopia in which everyone thinks just like me, a high-conscientiousness semi-autistic white male nerd. So I'll support it here and now and trust the utopia to show up by the time it's implemented."

Expand full comment

Koch/Caplan style open borders is the Emirati model, you import a bunch of lower IQ workers, you don't give them any citizenship/social welfare and basically have them work for you to maximize the profits, remember Caplan is an ancap. It's a far-right position. The closest real-life approximation is the UAE, though Singapore (with all of its guest workers) and apartheid-era South Africa (but with no restrictions on residency from the government, but no welfare either) aren't too far off.

Expand full comment

I'd be very curious to read if you have the link handy

Expand full comment
author
Aug 11, 2022·edited Aug 11, 2022

I remember reading that post when he made it and realizing how great an illustration it was of just how different we are.

First, he's willing to impoverish Americans to enrich foreigners, which implies to me that he's not really an American at all, but rather a hostile parasite who needs to be expelled from the body politic before the full corrosive effects of his ideas can manifest. (We needn't concern ourselves with his verbiage on the actual impact of the policy proposal in question, because his original argument took the trade-off for granted. So even if open borders would enrich Americans, we know that he's *willing* to impoverish them to benefit foreigners.)

Second, the breath-takingly naïve/autistic view that past trends (under what he considers a tightly-controlled immigration system) can predict future performance (under open borders) demonstrates that we shouldn't take his suggestions too seriously when they're perfectly aligned with his interests. He's a cosmopolitan who lives in a high-IQ/high-income bubble near DC. I'm quite confident that he believes open borders would produce a net benefit for *him*. But consider his case for pacifism, where he argues that the uncertainty inherent in predicting the outcome of wars should require us to expect a 5:1 ratio between lives saved and lives lost before even *considering* support for a conflict. We need neither agree nor disagree with this assessment in order to understand that this conservative outlook contrasts sharply with his willingness to recreate the Gauls' sacking of Rome on the basis of a tentative guess that the average poor person would get an extra $13,200 a year.

My purpose in pointing out this inconsistency is to suggest that his admittedly copious brainpower is not being deployed effectively when attacking this question. Motivated reasoning makes fools of us all.

Finally, the following paragraph should give us pause:

"Under open borders, the high-IQ share of the population shrinks. Due to this fall in relative supply of high-IQ workers, we should expect the market reward for IQ to rise. By how much? Consider South Africa. 80% of its citizens are black, 9% white, 9% mixed, and 2% Asian. White IQs far exceed black IQs. If Garett’s results for the private benefits of IQ were constant, we’d still expect tiny racial earnings gaps. Yet almost three decades after the end of apartheid, white earnings in South Africa far exceed black earnings; the average white makes about 500% more than the average black, and 250% more than the national average. If you do the math, a private payoff in this ballpark implies that open borders is no 'sacrifice' for natives. Instead, like every other previous massive increase in human productivity, open borders is a widely-shared bonanza. Just as my new book says."

Consider South Africa, he says. Ever been to South Africa? I have, back before I settled down and got married/started having kids. I narrowly avoided being stabbed to death in the street during an attempted robbery. South Africa is very close to what I'd consider hell on earth. The thought of my home turning into anything remotely resembling that place fills me with existential dread. And Caplan points to it as a *success story* due to its *radical racial inequality*.

Call me a communist, but I don't want to live in a country with a racial caste system!

No matter how much I might like the rest of what he says... *fuck* that guy. Maybe a 3 was too generous.

Expand full comment

Liking Adam Smith a lot is something of a blue-pilled libertarian thing. Once you read the Austrians his output on economics becomes less impressive.

Expand full comment

Surprised that Zionism and “my country should support Israel over the Palestinians” scored the same. I expected Zionism to score much higher. I thought the median Hanania reader would say that Israel is clearly better and contributes more to civilization, but that the US should go isolationist.

Expand full comment

I put 5 on both, but I'd pull out our bases and troops and phase out all military aid (we can have exceptions, like our few people running a radar station in the Negev), I'd still work with them on hacking Iran's nuclear program, missile defense, cyber, space colonization, and so on, and would continue to sell them weapons. I'm generally non-interventionist, but I'm not a full-blown isolationist. I'd close a lot of US bases and withdraw a lot of US troops (from Europe, ME, Asia), and wouldn't start any wars, but I wouldn't end our alliances.

I would guess that Zionism is weighed down by a low response rate, a fair number of frogs and Unz types just giving it a 1, and a bunch of regular based people not giving a response or giving it a 4, being like "yeah, Israel is better, it has high IQ, high TFR, high sector, but can the Republicans just shut up about it already and focus on civil rights?" I'm curious if the high standard deviation mostly comes form lots of 1's and lots of 4's, that would be my guess.

Curious what the rating for Zionism is when you restrict to everyone who gave Hitler a 1.

Expand full comment

You on June 17, 2020:

"I've seen people say 2020 vindicates Peter Turchin. I disagree. Here's his 2010 article that people cite. He doesn't tell you what the DV is, what kind of "violence" we'll see. The riots have killed a few dozen people, no noticeable uptick in murder."

But now we have data to say that there was a noticeable uptick in murder. Maybe Turchin had a point?

Expand full comment
author

No. Turchin considers the early 1990s when the murder rate was even higher a period of “low instability.” I’m sure if you asked him now though he’d say the murder rate today means his old predictions were right. He’s a complete fraud, he’s not even capable of being right or wrong because he’ll use whatever measure fits with his stupid cyclical theory.

Expand full comment

Frankly I was a little surprised you ranked so highly. There’s a lot of freaking people on that list and many of them founded our country.

Expand full comment

I mean, it's the Richard Hanania newsletter. I'm sure he attracts far more than his fair share of "I disagree with you but I like to read smart people with different views" liberals (the Scott Alexander/Steven Pinker crowd), but basically it's a newsletter for his fans, so of course he is going to rank highly.

Expand full comment

For sure, and he deserves it. My point was just that Hanania might be a five relative to other bloggers and a 4 once you throw Washington and Lincoln into the mix. No shame in ranking 11 against that competition.

Expand full comment

Richard, do you believe in god?

Expand full comment

Quit grunching, he answers this question in the post you're replying to.

(No, he doesn't.)

Expand full comment

Glenn Gaywald over Shinzo Abe... What a shame.

Expand full comment