Will Wilkinson has now begun what I hope will be a chapter-by-chapter take down of Bobo’s “Social Animal”. He begins with Chapter 12, which makes me think he won’t do all of them. Even if you don’t read it, click on it as a show of solidarity.
Personally, I find it difficult to take things like “happiness studies” (which Bobo loves) very seriously. I always think of Genghis Khan:
The greatest joy for a man is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears, to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms.
It seems just as likely to me that if happiness can actually be defined and studied, we may well learn that people are happiest pillaging and murdering, not leading dignified lives infused with neoconservative values.
Chyron HR
…no, too easy.
kindness
If you have to read it, steal the book so Bobo doesn’t make any royalties off of you.
scav
@Chyron HR: yeah.
Villago Delenda Est
@Chyron HR:
Well, we know that’s the way the undead look at it. See Dick Cheney, who gets off on Abu Ghraib “interrogation” videos, best I can tell.
cyd
Are you baiting your commenters?
Holden Pattern
@Chyron HR:
Also, too. Glad to know I am not the only one confused as to why this statement is framed as a disjunct.
A Farmer
It appears that David Brooks is pretty happy polishing knobs for the rich.
fuzed
Happiness?
Here ya go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirehead_%28science_fiction%29
“In Larry Niven’s Known Space stories, a wirehead is someone who has been fitted with an electronic brain implant (called a “droud” in the stories) to stimulate the pleasure centers of their brain. In the Known Space universe, wireheading is the most addictive habit known (the only given example of withdrawal is Louis Wu), and wireheads usually die from neglecting themselves in favor of the ceaseless pleasure. Wireheading is so powerful and easy that it becomes an evolutionary pressure, selecting against that portion of Known Space humanity without self-control. Wireheading need not use an actual brain implant; the pleasure center can be remotely activated by a small device called a “tasp” (important in the Ringworld novels).”
long ago
of course the neo-cons themselves prefer murder and pillage.
but so-called neo-conservative values are *always* meant for other people. that’s what a “neo-conservative value” is: it’s one that neo-conservatives teach to the little people, while holding themselves exempt from it.
that’s the straussian racket: you teach the plebes to be subservient church-goers, while you, your oil company, your mercenaries, and halliburton go pillage and murder.
what–you think bobo himself is not in on the con? he knows it, too. he benefits from it. he parties with these people. it may be laughable to think of bobo riding in the mongol horde, but he is surely a member of the neo-con horde. it’s his job to keep the slightly smarter plebes stroking their chins in docile agreement.
rageahol
The problem, as with everything Brooks does, is his selective and detailed curation of a body of, in this case, scientific work, that most strongly upholds his pre-existing narrative.
i am pretty well certain that he won’t get into that area of happiness studies that deals with, say, positional goods, because it would undermine his worldview and identity. i think there is plenty of legitimate happiness research out there, myself.
Jack
@long ago: What he said…
From what I’ve seen, the rich have been raping and pillaging without limits for the last decade or more.
Short Bus Bully
Genghis had it right, as did Tamerlane. We just need a modern liberal version to go rape and pillage the neocons of today.
FDR as the mold.
dr. bloor
If Wilkinson wants us to read his work, he’s going to have to quit quoting so extensively from Bobo’s–I couldn’t get past them. Brooks couldn’t pass an undergraduate Social Psych course with that dreck.
fasteddie9318
Conan the Barbarian distilled that Genghis Khan quote nicely:
slag
Wow. Just wow. Is it too generous to our educational system to think that David Brooks would never pass a social science class in this country?
@dr. bloor: Good. The fact that you think so too makes me more optimistic about our future.
fasteddie9318
@slag:
Probably. I’d like to see some proof he graduated high school, myself.
Villago Delenda Est
@Short Bus Bully:
FDR had the opportunity to end the parasite overclass for once and for all, and declined to do so. In fact, he saved them from tumbrel rides…and they’ve hated him ever since for doing so.
Damn liberal values creeping in, preventing him from going for the kill.
DFH no.6
fasteddie beat me to it, but it’s especially enjoyable (in a campy way, I guess) when heard in Arnold the Governator’s inimitable voice:
“To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women”.
One of my favorite movie quotes of all time.
I’m easily amused, obviously.
slag
@fasteddie9318: Yeah. I was disappointed to learn he was Canadian. I took solace in the idea that Canada proved public education can succeed. Sad to see it go so wrong here.
Brachiator
Sounds a lot like Conan the Barbarian
And if you take some recent studies of Genghis Khan seriously, it’s clear that “happiness studies” that don’t take him into account are leaving out huge chunks of history:
It’s good to be the Khan.
Pongo
So Brooks, disturbed by the crumbling mores of society (read; lower classes), decided it was time to use his vast background in the social sciences (undergrad degree in history) to set the rest of us on the right course. After selectively parsing available research to find any that appeared to support his thesis, he was shocked to discover that he was right and felt the need to put this insight into book form. As a non-scientist, he benefited from being able to quote studies and build pseudo-credibility without having to take responsibility for getting the interpretation right (‘hey, I’m no scientist–I’m just telling you what it says right here’). Does that about sum up the nature of this best seller?
Nylund
Brooks creates a false dichotomy between two choices. In reality, the two choices need not be mutually exclusive, nor will they likely be the ONLY choices. Plus, his false choices are pure fantasy. Its like saying, “Do I marry the supermodel or the millionaire?” How many people actually have the choice? How many people can just “choose” to become a successful HBO producer?
From the get-go, the “problem” is a mess. Its a problem that doesn’t even exist. Using his magic Bobo powers, he intuits which is superior a priori, then misquotes articles that summarize papers (he never reads the actual papers) to prove his point. Through ignorance (willful or not), he entirely ignores all the flaws and limitations of said research, often universalizing findings that actually only (questionably) hold for a tiny subset, or just misunderstanding them entirely.
Its nothing but terrible theses poorly backed up by terrible reasoning and a terrible understanding of social science research.
sukabi
we may well learn that people are happiest pillaging and murdering, not leading dignified lives infused with neoconservative values
what makes you think those are two separate philosophies? seems like the neocons of today are doing the raping, pillaging and murdering just the same as Khan, it’s just that today they have minions (private contractors as well as the official military) do the “dirty work” for them.
Omnes Omnibus
@Nylund: I haven’t read it, but, from what I have read of his work, I would add hackneyed and cliched writing.
slag
@Pongo: Actually, I think “Look at me, I’m Brooksy D, why can’t I be happy-y?” pretty much sums up this best-seller.
Bob L
.Going by the internet Genghis Khan said it best that killing and raping each other is what really makes people happy.
Roger Moore
@Villago Delenda Est:
No, he didn’t. He may possibly have had the opportunity to destroy the group of people who were occupying the position of parasite overclass in the 1930s*, but those are not the same thing. Parasites are not something that can be wiped out permanently at a single go; they’re something that must be continually fought against. Just look at Russia and China. They had communist revolutions that were remarkably thorough in extinguishing their overclasses, but both of them have brand new overclasses today.
*More likely not. The rich capitalists still had a lot of power in the 1930s, and any attempt to thoroughly destroy them would have resulted in a really nasty civil war that Roosevelt had no guarantee of winning.
Svensker
@Nylund:
You have left a review on Amazon, haven’t you. If not, go and do it.
Chris
@long ago:
Interesting and good point.
I watched a video a couple weeks ago from an atheist conservative who explained why Christianity, unlike Islam, turned people nice and freedom loving and peaceful and therefore was something we all should be proud of as part of our American heritage.
At the time, I thought most of his viewers would be going “ah, good! An atheist who recognizes our superiority and treats us with appropriate subservience.” Having read your post now, I’m thinking the rich people in his audience were watching his video and going “ah, good! He’s explaining to the dumb little commoners what morality to follow so we won’t have to.”
ppcli
@slag: He was born in Canada, but raised in the ‘States. (Childhood in NYC, high school in Philadelphia). So your hypothesis is undamaged by Brooks.
(David “Son of Barbara” Frump (“the ‘p’ is silent”) on the other hand, did get educated in Canada. In fact, at University of Toronto Schools, which is probably the best public high school in the country. Can’t win ’em all.)
brantl
“we may well learn that people are happiest pillaging and murdering, not leading dignified lives infused with neoconservative values.” What’s the difference, except for some middelmen?
Menu
@Pongo:
Why, yes! It does.
Who knew? Turns out all the hottest, newest human behavior research supports Bobo’s worldview.
danimal
Would this blog shrivel up and die if D-Brooks actually got laid and stopped writing drivel?
Comrade DougJ
@long ago:
Good point.
Comrade DougJ
@danimal:
That’s a good question. I think I would personally stop blogging but that the other FPers would be fine.
bjacques
@danimal:
I’d certainly feel like something was missing from my life, and I’d have to go raping and pillaging in a vain attempt to replace it.
By the way, I too think it’s a false choice between raping and pillaging and leading a dignified life infused with neoconservative values–neocons obviously can do both.
This is 87% (with an error of +/- 3%) like working for a large company where they waste your time with employee surveys and then come back with results showing you aren’t really motivated by money. Unlike the CEO.
PIGL
@ppcli: Re Baby Frumm, the late great Dalton Camp once introduced him as proof that existed no shirt to young to be stuffed.
PurpleGirl
@kindness: get it from the library.
PurpleGirl
@slag: Actually, he grew up in the US. His parents moved down here when he was a child, so he did attend American schools. We can’t blame Canada for Bobo.
daryljfontaine
@Brachiator: And that reminds me of Terry Pratchett:
D
Cat
Wow, What a f’ing sociopath. The fact he was loved and inspired such strong loyalty makes me think most people have a very basic misunderstanding of human nature.
fasteddie9318
@Cat: He assembled a bunch of poor, nomadic tribes who had been crapped on by the Chinese and (to a lesser extent) Islamic empires on either side and led them to victory after victory after lucrative victory against their former oppressors. It’s not hard to understand why he was and is so beloved among the Mongols. He did a couple of very non-sociopathic things like introducing an alphabet to his people and instituting some sort of basic legal framework, and anyway it’s hard to argue that he was any more sociopathic than any other warlord/ruler at that time in history. He was just the most successful of them.
Mark S.
I think that sums up Brooks and his new fetish for social research better than anything else I’ve ever read.
Cat
@fasteddie9318:
Doesn’t mean he wasnt a sociopath.
fasteddie9318
@Cat: History is filled with sociopaths. I have a hard time putting Genghis very high on that list.
El Cid
@Chris: It always amuses me when right wingers praise Western values of rationality and open debate, say, versus civilizations ‘we’re’ clashing against such as them Moozlims.
When it comes to their actual beliefs and behavior, the right wing movement in this country hates Western rationality and open debate.
DFH no.6
@bjacques:
I’ve been in management for a couple decades now (holy shit! I’m the Man!) and this corporate bullshit about “the minions” not being motivated by money (while, as you say, the CEO quite obviously is) has always pissed me off more than just about anything at work. It pisses me off even more than the Franklin Covey “7 Habits for 7 Brothers” and “win-win” nonsense.
And I’ve called them on this bullshit at every management training session, or “leadership seminar”, or whatever, I’ve ever attended (and damn, there have been a fuckload of those over the years). I just tell them straight out that they can’t possibly be so deluded as to believe such obvious and ludicrous crap, and they really shouldn’t allow themselves to believe the “proles” are so stupid as to believe it, either.
Turd in the capitalist-toady punchbowl, that’s me.
Brachiator
Looking at this again, I return to an earlier conclusion that Brooks is indulging in the use and abuse of science in order to try to justify a conclusion about philosophy in his musings about what makes us happy.
This is a total waste of time.
It doesn’t matter that it involves neo-con values or any other variety.
gex
@Roger Moore: This. There are always people at the top in one way or another. And they always need to be checked since power accumulates without pushback.
@danimal: Not as long as Sullivan’s blogging.
Chris
@El Cid:
Oh, definitely.
And it’s really pathetic to watch the people who had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries (leaving a nice pile of dead bodies with every kick and scream) now claiming that the ideas they were force-fed were really theirs all along and prove that they’re just the best people in creation evar.
Howlin Wolfe
@DFH no.6: “Arnold the Governator’s
inimitableoft- and easily- imitated voice”. FFA.Deb T
“The profound significance of personality and the differences between individuals are almost entirely ignored in The Social Animal.”
For me this is the key point in Wilkinson’s article – the primary flaw of Brooks’ book. For his theory to work out, you have to fall within the parameters of his profile.
Tehanu
@Chyron HR:
Rats, you beat me to it.
sparky
@long ago: @Comrade DougJ:
well, yes, but isn’t that a political theory (talking theory, not implementation) that has, even or especially now, some validity. think of the crazification factor, add some effective disinformation, and you have a political base that needs only to be told as an afterthought. kinda like what Obama did with Libya.
incidentally, i don’t remember enough Strauss to be sure on this point, but i don’t think it’s necessary that the theory requires its practitioners be reactionaries, though i’d guess it’s more efficient in that garb.