David Brooks and the Social Automaton

Last updated on: September 24, 2012 at 5:48 pm by Leah Libresco

David Brooks and the Social Automaton 2012-09-24T17:48:40-04:00 Leah Libresco

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

After reading my slam on David Brooks’s The Social Animal, Dylan had some objections:

“Other than the fact that it’s terribly, terribly written and completely expository (it makes the Emile, on which it is clearly modeled, look like an actual novel by comparison), what’s so “yikes” about the exact passage you excerpted? Can you really be such a HP&TMoR fan/transhumanist and also think that treating so-called “cognitive biases” as limitations to be overcome is tantamount to “unweaving the rainbow”? I agree that David Brooks’s (I know you’ll be crotchety about that, too, but it’s actually the older convention for non-plural possessives when the word ends with an S) broader conception of happiness and fulfillment seems pretty bankrupt, but I don’t see how this passage illustrates that.”

I want to start by clearing up one serious misconception: I do not object to the possessive of Brooks being Brooks’s, in fact, I vastly prefer it to Brooks’. Now on to the content.

One of my objections to Brooks is that ‘unweaving the rainbow’ is only ok if you know what you’re doing. Brooks tends to overstate the science he cites. The review today at The New York Times disapprovingly references this tendency as follows:

“Brooks seems willing to take seriously any claim by a cognitive scientist, however idiotic: for example, that since people need only 4,000 words for 98 percent of conversations, the reason they have vocabularies of 60,000 words is to impress and sort out potential mates.”

Brooks’s is willing to simplify complex phenomena past what the data and theories will bear. In my head, I was using the phrase ‘unweaving the rainbow’ to mean discarding what you can’t explain, refusing to acknowledge the whole for fear of revealing the weaknesses of the model. Now that I’ve gone to look at the origin of the phrase (an accusation by John Keats against Isaac Newton), I can see it’s not a good fit for my critique. Keats meant to indict Newton and other scientists for spoiling things with any attempt at explanation. A poor choice of phrase on my part.

My larger objection to Brooks, and the reason I would not put him in the HP&TMoR fan/transhumanist camp, is that he presents a great deal of data and doesn’t want to do much of anything with it. He goes over priming and other discoveries of evolutionary psychology to make it clear our rational minds have less control over us than we think. But, as far as I can tell, he doesn’t outline any measures we can take to wrest this power back.

This is a major contrast with the folks at Less Wrong, who turn explanation into tools for engineering. Brooks seems satisfied with describing some factors underlying the status quo. It’s interesting to know that holding a warm drink may spur me to have warmer feelings; it’s useful for me to grab a hot chocolate before I go to meet someone I know I habitually treat uncharitably.

As far as I can tell from reviews, Brooks’s characters narrate their psychology to themselves but never try to shape it. (I’m not planning to buy the book, given the reviews, but I’ll browse through it in the bookstore when I get back to campus and let you know if I’m wrong about this). The NYT hypothesized that Brooks’s avatars never act because they have no telos:

“Life, morality and politics are not science, but their improvement requires thought — not only thought about the most effective means of shaping people, which is Brooks’s concern, but thought about what our ends should be. Such questions don’t appeal to him, since they cannot be settled by empirical evidence of the kind he feels comfortable with.”

I don’t know if the reviewer’s complaint is accurate about Brooks’s beliefs, but the fact that this book keeps prompting this reaction strengthens my discomfort. Whether Brooks meant to or not, he seems to have written a sterile, simplistic book on human behavior that continues to turn people off. Fostering that distaste is a disservice to science, to transhumanism, and to the pursuit of human virtue.

P.S. Interested in thinking some more about problems of being human? Christian from The Thinking Grounds just posted part 2 of his series on the boundaries of Self and Body.

Reviews/Recommendations

transhumanism

Previous Post

March 12, 2011

Housekeeping: Comments and Guest Posts

Next Post

March 14, 2011 The Body and Buggy Software

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 7 Quick Takes Apologetics Atheism Book Conversion Debate Tactics Debates Epistemology/Philosophy Housekeeping Ideological Turing Test Marriage Morality in Practice Parsing Catholicism Possibly Heretical Radio Reviews/Recommendations Sequence Index Spiritual Practice Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2017 March 2017 January 2017 December 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the shortest chapter in the Bible?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Psalm 117 Psalm 119 John 3 Proverbs 31