Regular followers of my inspirational reflections know I like how David Brooks thinks and writes. Brooks routinely writes pieces that appear in the New York Times and other venues. I don’t always agree with Brooks’ politics, but I do value his clarity and his ability to develop analytical thinking that helps me think more clearly. Like a good teacher, I can say that Brooks helps me get clear what I think!
I don’t comment on every editorial he writes, but I do read every one. I like his range of reading. He has put me on to books I never would have known about, much less read. Recently, he has thought a great deal about ethics, virtues and the like. This resonates with my own work. I value his take on contemporary politics and what a mess that world is. But he does not just complain; he offers alternatives and solutions. As far as I know, he is not now nor ever does he intend to run for public office. I hope he doesn’t because that would blunt his effectiveness as a critic---in the best sense of that word.
In a recent column he applauded the selection of Richard Thaler as the Nobel winner in Economics. I have not read much of Thaler’s work, but I know his basic premise. Brooks puts that premise succinctly when he says, “Thaler took an obvious point, that people don’t always behave rationally, and showed the ways we are systematically irrational.” That made sense to me. I know when I think about money, I am not always rational---although I generally consider I am!
Thaler is part of a group of economists called “behavioral economists.” Brooks moves to another level. He notes, “But Thaler et al. were only scratching the surface of our irrationality.” Brooks clarifies by going further. “It’s when we get to the social world that things really get gnarly. A lot of our thinking is for bonding, not truth-seeking, so most of us are quite willing to think or say anything that will help us be liked by our group.” When I read a couple sentences like this, I get the feeling there is something important here.
This is the point Brooks references a new book by Alan Jacobs, called, How to Think. I don’t know Jacobs, but I trust that Brooks once more is leading me to something I want to know. He helps me be current. Apparently, Jacobs talks about “relational ways of thinking” which are different than “rational ways of thinking.” It is probably not either/or. But after Thaler and Jacobs, we won’t be able to claim we are always rational in our thinking. I suspect all of us know that already! Clearly, there are times when I do things that “make no sense.” In other words, I really was not thinking---or thinking rationally.
Brooks helps me see what is at stake from this perspective. It also begins to feel like a spiritual issue when I read a statement such as this one. Brooks notes, “Jacobs nicely shows how our thinking processes emerge from emotional life and moral character. If your heart and soul are twisted, your response to the world will be, too.” Again, this makes sense. Our thinking process comes out of our emotional life and moral character.
I can think of many times when my feelings dictated my thinking process. Obviously, people do some really stupid things based on their feelings. People who are very angry say and do things they later regret. Again, it is as if they weren’t really thinking. They are right; they were not rational. Killing someone because you are mad at them is not smart. And if we are bad characters, then why would we expect virtuous action? It is very clear to me humans being are not solely rational creatures.
I really like how Brooks puts these thoughts in street language. Twisted hearts and souls inevitably twist the way we see our world and our response to the world. It sounds like Brooks has just offered a nice way to talk about sin: twisted hearts and souls. It works for me! The way around this, Brooks claims, is by “diagnosing our own ills.” And then comes the punch line for Brooks and for me. He says, “…I’d say that if social life can get us into trouble, social life can get us out.” He asks, how do we persuade people?
Brooks gets to his main point. “But the real way to persuade people is to create an attractive community that people want to join. If you do that, they’ll bend their opinions to yours. If you want people to be reasonable, create groups where it’s cool to be reasonable.” Community is the answer to the individual behavioral problem. Of course, that is not always true. But it is the way forward. Even more importantly, create an “attractive community.”
These kind of communities used to be churches, synagogues, etc. Those are not as influential any more. So we need to become more imaginative. I feel like I know how to create attractive communities. And I am persuaded that Jacobs and Brooks are right. Attractive communities do shape how people think and, therefore, act. And if these communities also address the spiritual needs of all humans, they will have even more power to persuade.
I sense a calling here. I hope many folks will give themselves to creating and sustaining attractive communities. They may be our best hope for our future.
I don’t comment on every editorial he writes, but I do read every one. I like his range of reading. He has put me on to books I never would have known about, much less read. Recently, he has thought a great deal about ethics, virtues and the like. This resonates with my own work. I value his take on contemporary politics and what a mess that world is. But he does not just complain; he offers alternatives and solutions. As far as I know, he is not now nor ever does he intend to run for public office. I hope he doesn’t because that would blunt his effectiveness as a critic---in the best sense of that word.
In a recent column he applauded the selection of Richard Thaler as the Nobel winner in Economics. I have not read much of Thaler’s work, but I know his basic premise. Brooks puts that premise succinctly when he says, “Thaler took an obvious point, that people don’t always behave rationally, and showed the ways we are systematically irrational.” That made sense to me. I know when I think about money, I am not always rational---although I generally consider I am!
Thaler is part of a group of economists called “behavioral economists.” Brooks moves to another level. He notes, “But Thaler et al. were only scratching the surface of our irrationality.” Brooks clarifies by going further. “It’s when we get to the social world that things really get gnarly. A lot of our thinking is for bonding, not truth-seeking, so most of us are quite willing to think or say anything that will help us be liked by our group.” When I read a couple sentences like this, I get the feeling there is something important here.
This is the point Brooks references a new book by Alan Jacobs, called, How to Think. I don’t know Jacobs, but I trust that Brooks once more is leading me to something I want to know. He helps me be current. Apparently, Jacobs talks about “relational ways of thinking” which are different than “rational ways of thinking.” It is probably not either/or. But after Thaler and Jacobs, we won’t be able to claim we are always rational in our thinking. I suspect all of us know that already! Clearly, there are times when I do things that “make no sense.” In other words, I really was not thinking---or thinking rationally.
Brooks helps me see what is at stake from this perspective. It also begins to feel like a spiritual issue when I read a statement such as this one. Brooks notes, “Jacobs nicely shows how our thinking processes emerge from emotional life and moral character. If your heart and soul are twisted, your response to the world will be, too.” Again, this makes sense. Our thinking process comes out of our emotional life and moral character.
I can think of many times when my feelings dictated my thinking process. Obviously, people do some really stupid things based on their feelings. People who are very angry say and do things they later regret. Again, it is as if they weren’t really thinking. They are right; they were not rational. Killing someone because you are mad at them is not smart. And if we are bad characters, then why would we expect virtuous action? It is very clear to me humans being are not solely rational creatures.
I really like how Brooks puts these thoughts in street language. Twisted hearts and souls inevitably twist the way we see our world and our response to the world. It sounds like Brooks has just offered a nice way to talk about sin: twisted hearts and souls. It works for me! The way around this, Brooks claims, is by “diagnosing our own ills.” And then comes the punch line for Brooks and for me. He says, “…I’d say that if social life can get us into trouble, social life can get us out.” He asks, how do we persuade people?
Brooks gets to his main point. “But the real way to persuade people is to create an attractive community that people want to join. If you do that, they’ll bend their opinions to yours. If you want people to be reasonable, create groups where it’s cool to be reasonable.” Community is the answer to the individual behavioral problem. Of course, that is not always true. But it is the way forward. Even more importantly, create an “attractive community.”
These kind of communities used to be churches, synagogues, etc. Those are not as influential any more. So we need to become more imaginative. I feel like I know how to create attractive communities. And I am persuaded that Jacobs and Brooks are right. Attractive communities do shape how people think and, therefore, act. And if these communities also address the spiritual needs of all humans, they will have even more power to persuade.
I sense a calling here. I hope many folks will give themselves to creating and sustaining attractive communities. They may be our best hope for our future.
Comments
Post a Comment