Candace Owens is a conservative Black American who thinks Black Americans should all be conservatives. To that end, part of her shtick is to attack prominent African-Americans who are liberals or whom she suspects are liberals. And as an attention junkie, she will do it with the most incendiary, click-bait language, better to feed her insatiable need to satisfy her ‘look-at-me’ addiction. She is far from being alone in this failing. Bearing that in mind, let’s have a look at her opinion of LeBron James.
During a recent appearance on the Full Send Podcast, Owens used a compliment to set up a slap-down of the superstar athlete.
“To be clear, LeBron is a well-meaning person and I don’t think LeBron means to do bad. I just don’t think he’s that smart, I really do. I think LeBron James is low IQ.”
I have no idea what James’ IQ is. Hell, I don’t even know what my IQ is. I have never taken the test. So how Owens can have an opinion on James’ IQ is unclear. And besides, as the old joke has it, the only thing an IQ test measures is your ability to take IQ tests. Which points to a larger truth. How do you measure intelligence? How well you use analogies? Your ability to ‘read’ other people? The size of your vocabulary? Reasoning skills? General knowledge? Or is there a results-based measure?
Take James. Not only is he the all-time leading NBA scorer, but his net worth is nudging $1 billion. There are two ways to be rich. One is to be born to it. The other is to earn it. And James has earned every dollar he has. It may not take a genius to make money, but it is hard to do if you are a ‘low IQ’ person.
I also don’t know what Owens's IQ is. But I suspect that Warren Buffett’s is high. And this is what Buffett, who I think is an excellent judge of people, had to say about LeBron, when he first met him back in 2007.
“We had a good time, and since that day, I’ve been impressed with his leadership skills, his sharp mind, and his ability to stay grounded.”
Make of that what you will. (Many readers will notice that here I am guilty of the ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy.)
Owens had more to say of James.
“I’ve heard him speak about issues, and he just is so wrong. He carries with him an arrogance which isn’t hard when you’re being called a king, and he is an incredible talent, there is no doubt about that.”
If Owens were intellectually honest, she would say that LeBron‘s biggest sin is that he disagrees with her. And as for the part about “arrogance”, that is a classic example of the ad hominem logical fallacy. Gratuitous personal attacks do nothing to improve your argument. ‘Arrogance‘ has nothing to do with intelligence or the quality of your opinions.
As might be expected, Owens had more. And it was vituperative.
“If you are not educated about something, you shouldn’t speak on it…I would rather him be quiet than tell his people that follow him a lie. He needs to do the work of actually becoming educated about these issues, and it’s not hard. It really isn’t hard to look up data and to look up the facts.”
“Educated” is a loaded word. Typically, when we say someone is ‘well-educated,’ we mean that they have gone far with their formal schooling. Did Owens use the word like a dog whistle to highlight that LeBron James has no education beyond high school? If she did, she is hoist by her own petard, as she is a dropout from the University of Rhode Island — which is ranked #162 in national universities. (Here, I am guilty of the ‘ad hominem’ fallacy myself).
But let’s give Owens the benefit of the doubt and assume she was using the word innocuously. And in doing so, let’s look at her advice. She says that to become sufficiently educated to have a ‘correct’ opinion about something, you need to look up facts and data. I’ll grant you that is a good start. But it doesn’t get you far. You can have all the facts and data, but they are useless if you do not know what to do with them.
Worse than that, they are dangerous when cherry-picked - as cable news channels do. In current economic reporting, Fox will focus on inflation. While MSNBC will focus on historically good GDP gains and outstanding job numbers. (Here, I use the ‘editorializing’ fallacy.)
But even people who want to be honest with facts and data often misunderstand that, while they are necessary, so much more is needed to construct a valid argument. As Richard Feynman said,
“You can know the name of that bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird.
I’ll put it another way. Believing that having all the facts and data makes you a sophisticated thinker is like believing a well-stocked kitchen makes you a great cook.
Facts and data are like wood and metal. Everyone has access to the same raw material but the better carpenter, the better the finished product. And I ask you, who is the better carpenter, LeBron James or Candace Owens?