I used to be super plugged into political commentary, but as time has gone on, I’ve tried to move towards a more practical understanding of the issues in front of me on an interpersonal, intellectual, and social level. I think the thing that these intellectuals all have in common is a desire to find truth through adversarial discussion, a contrarian instinct, range, and the spirit of charity in viewing works that may disagree with them. I’d say they all exhibit emotional intelligence in how they interact with other viewpoints, and avoid going for red-meat blows that don’t merit substantive thinking. Underneath will be a little bit about each of them, in case you’re looking for more information.
Glenn Loury: For some reason, I’ve been following the Glenn show since midway through my undergraduate studies. Glenn was the first black Harvard economics professor to gain tenure. Through the many conversations with John McWhorter and others, he contextualizes heterodox positions on a range of subjects, one highlight is his debate with Richard Wolff, while also giving the more prominent view a hearing as well. Particularly, hearing him approach Israel as a subject, it was clear he was able to grapple with the topic in a way that felt very empathetic and human, before a consensus arose. Another thing I like about him is that he’s been in a bunch of different cliques over time, ranging from Reagan conservative to centrist Democrat. His general project/agenda seems to be to bring a more pro-family, pro-conservatism, anti-crime perspective as an attitude towards racial issues, and I’ve found his commentary generally persuasive. Interestingly, I also appreciate that his family tends to be more left-wing, which I think speaks to his ability to thrive in an intellectually pluralist perspective. I was in the process of booking Glenn as a speaker at my college, but my girlfriend at the time, who I was planning the event with, and I parted ways.
Tyler Cowen: Whereas I’ve been interested in Glenn since college, I’ve been interested in Cowen’s work since high school. I used to be really involved in competitive debate, and wanted to understand more about economics in order to thrive. To that end, I found Marginal Revolution, and I grew to love the accessible and idiosyncratic perspectives of the founder. Tyler Cowen shares a daily blog with Alex Tabarrok called Marginal Revolution. From his blogging, it’s clear Cowen is an autodidact, regularly consuming large amounts of literature, music, and interesting cuisine, in his desire to learn. He strays into philosophy, AI, rationalism, and more in ways that are provocative and contrarian. I had the pleasure of interviewing him when I was in college about his corpus, after emailing him a 15 page essay critical of his book Stubborn Attachments. Very friendly, wicked smart, and excellent at switching gears. He was able to talk at length about a range of interesting topics in the half-hour that I chatted with him. Some fun little things about his writing that I enjoy, Straussianism, Tyrone Cowen, and TONs of book recommendations. He also has a podcast called Conversations with Tyler where he interrogates various intellectuals and experts in their fields, helping to separate the wheat from the chaff, in terms of rigor. One interview I would recommend is his original one with Peter Singer on bloggingheads if you can find it.
Scott Alexander: The highest quality blog I have access to is Slate Star Codex by Scott Alexander. The posts on it cover topics ranging from left libertarianism, to fish oil, to Covid discount rates, to effective altruism. Whereas I think Glenn and Tyler have to massage some of their views to match their audience, and maintain in good standing for the public intellectual gig, Scott’s pseudonym gives him a wider range of ability to share his thoughts directly. Scott is followed by many interesting people, and for good reason. When he writes essays, he gives a fair shake to positions that aren’t his own, and he regularly steel-mans opposing perspectives. He also experiments with various modes of writing, including parables and Socratic dialogues. Some of my favorite pieces by him include: Current Affairs’ “Some Puzzles For Libertarians”, Treated As Writing Prompts For Short Stories; the Every Bay Area House Party Saga, and Hardball Questions for the Next Debate series. All of them display a sense of humor, and a strong desire to prove he’s smarter than you. Interestingly, he’s also a psychologist, unlike the other two economists, and I appreciate hearing a perspective that’s a little less ‘academic’ focused.
Overall, I don’t think you can go wrong reading any of their work or consuming their content. Which public intellectuals are your favorites, and why?
Isadore Johnson's Website 