The Hidden Sources of Love - and Achievement

One of the best writers in America has really produced a dud. I understand and agree with everything, but it is very poorly written. I have lost respect for him because of this book. I am sure the only reason it was published was because he is David Brooks.

This is one of the best books I have ever read. I wanted to learn more about the early start of life (the months before the birth) and Mr. Brooks does a fabulous job of explaining it in a manner understandable by laymen.

He is one of the most articulate writers/speakers I have ever read or watched on TV. He is a knowegeable thinker not touched by political dogma and always subject to reason.

As an individual believing in Success By Six, I now know it is really success by 6 years and 8 months. This is a book that every man and women should read thre day they learn about prgnanacy; then read again when pregnant again.

I read an excerpt from this book in a national magazine a few months ago. I thought it was well written so I got the book. Its a fun, interesting read. Well researched, insightful and clever. A good book.

After the first few pages I realised that this book was not going to be what I had anticipated. I was hoping for an intelligent book about new findings in neuroscience. Instead I got a series of anecdotes interwoven with a fictional tale about a couple in love. I couldnt bear to continue.I cant believe it got so many good reviews.

David write a book. Not a two bit novel of a young couple. Book was not worth the money. Brooks' writings of late are very disappointing. His writings try to give the impression that he knows what he is talking about by quoting various studies here and there. Having said that, he now has become like most Academia -out of of touch with reality.

This book reads like a textbook for a college sociology course. There is an abudance of tedious details that seem extreneous to me. Usually David Brooks writes quite well, but I didn't like this book. So sorry.

Althrough David Brooks is consertative this book speaks to what underlies current happenings in our nation and the world. I believe it is a must read for thoughtful people.It gives ,emomng tp contemporary controversies.

This is the kind of book that requires a hands-on book....along with the transportable Kindle version.
One to enjoy at the times the book needs to be in portable form...(like a book needed but not planned on being needed).
ANOTHER to share with a friend after it's been highlighted and marked at the unique events pages of human behavior...a paper version.
Easy to read and humorous with great human insight into social development of plain ordinary people_(family members).
I watched the PBS Charlie Rose Show __as David Brooks introduced this new book,
and have thoroughly enjoyed it.
I, too enjoy his kind, logical approach to life and love sharing a book of this type with my reader friends.

As a long ago psychology major turned polictical science student, I have long been fascinated with the exploration of who we are and just how we got there. David Brooks' new book should give any reader new insights into what they think and do what they do today. And, he gives us some real insight into why so many of the people we deal with really are not like us! An important and engrossing book! Thanks, David!

For many years, I've respected David Brooks as a columnist and political commentator. But I found this book difficult to read and painfully disappointing. A lofty title as such should offer pearls of wisdom. BUT, I fear he takes himself too seriously. It is as though he thinks of himself as 'The Great Oz'.

As a educator, I know that he distorted child development theory to fit his agenda. (A previous reviewer said much the same.)

Even worse, he makes numerous unsubstantiated proclamations. Example- "Even among people who are sexually abused as children, roughly a third show few serious aftereffects in adulthood." (16% Kindle) Who said that and what study supported that?

What did I like? It is hard to explain because the book is so confusing- it is like three books jumbled into one. But his social commentary is very biting, kind of like Tom Wolfe and that is entertaining.

Reading this book was a painful experience. From page one, the author bulldozes the reader with a dazzling array of "facts," like a bad party guest. This relentless barrage was almost abusive, the writer cornering me and walling me in with facts that I could neither question nor debate.

In the fiction element, Brooks' characters run headlong through their lives like rats in a maze, their choices determined entirely by chemistry and physics, or at least the narrow view of said subjects as provided by the author. Their lives are trapped in the present, a plot element I found jarring and unrealistic.

There was nothing deep here, just a whitewash of pseudo-science applied to a narrow definition of success. The author cops out of a fiction novel with the non-fiction element, while the fiction element excuses him of academic review.

If I didn't have to read it for a club, I would have stopped reading after the first chapter. If you want to appear superficially intelligent, and bore people to death at parties, go for it.

I like David Brooks, but after patiently wending my way through this book, my partisan left and right brains finally got together and concluded that one Gary Larson "The Far Side" cartoon is worth a thousand "scholarly" studies of human behavior.

I am a fan of David Brooks' NYT columns and News Hour commentary. He is smart, thoughtful, intellectually curious and extraordinarily well-read. But I found his book a mess.

First, the fictional character motif never works. It's very difficult to believably use made-up characters to demonstrate real-world concepts...there's just too much opportunity to create the characters' traits to justify your premise. Then there's Brooks' lack of fiction writing skill; I just never believed either of these characters to be representative of real people. And, we seemed to drop into their lives at widely separated intervals to be told all the non-characteristic turns their lives had taken since we last met them. I found it impossible to believe in either character, much less become emotionally involved in what happened to them.

Second, while a research and intellectual tour de force, the book races over, at a high level, such a vast universe of social and cognitive research that it reads more like a "look at how well-read I am" vanity project than a serious attempt to truly educate the reader about important current scientific thought. A brutal editor was needed to focus the author on the main points he wanted to express.

David, I remain a fan. But I think your book is terrible.

The Social Animal is a comprehensive exploration of individual development. Renowned NY Times writer David Brooks explores the relationship between the conscious and unconscious mind couched in the fictional narrative of the lives of Harold and Erica. Brooks delves into the impacts that families, communities, and relationships have on personal development and success. Discussions cover the full aspect of a person’s life: the attractions that draw people together and how they respond to parenthood; the impacts and lessons of school, sports, and studies; career ambitions, successes, and failures; adult relationships, self-discovery, aging, and preparation for death. The narrative is interspersed with overviews of a variety of scientific studies that provide a firm foundation for the conclusions that Brooks reaches about the limitations of technical knowledge and the importance of connections with others.

Through these academic highlights, this book provides an informal introduction to diverse topics such as depth psychology, sociology, and anthropology. As such, The Social Animal is highly recommended to those interested in self-understanding. Parents and others who work with young children will also benefit from a revised understanding of the nature versus nurture debate and the fallacy of logic and reason as sole wisdom sources.

Review also posted at windlullaby.com

Extremely unsatisfying.
I've read a number of books about modern advances in brain studies and this is undisputably the most terribly written and uninteresting one of all of them. (I"ll provide a list of numerous others that are far better at the end.)
This is scientific research told as a fictional story about two people who interact with each other.
However, the two characters are like nothing of this world -- ivy league, aristocrat, snobs. Instantly you do not care about the characters at all and the terribly undescriptive language used to keep you from really connecting to the characters makes this book a laborious journey through a huge pile of blather.
Please, do yourself a favor and pick any one or more of the following books which are far better:

1) __The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing To Our Brains__ Fantastic, read it twice
2) __Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain__ - Fast read, terrifically interesting and at times shocking what your mind does
3) __The Brain That Changes Itself__ strong research from a neuroscientist, amazing info and stories.

In summary: "Follow your instincts, bounce off (or avoid) failure, and live in harmony with your inner self and select others." -David Brooks (reduced)

Given that I can't get the time I wasted on this book back:
I suggest Antonio Dimasio for digestible neuroscience, although much of his work is also 'high fiber'.
Refer to Patrick King for pop-psyh social climbing.

Why read this? The Social Animal is high in fiber, low in protein, and very oily. It may cause you to poop with rage.

Mr Brooks is an Op-Ed columnist for the NYTimes, I read his work regularly and enjoy his efforts. He writes about public policy in his columns and some may see him as the token conservative for the Op-Ed group, but I think he is more of a middle road thinker between liberal and conservative. Have lived in Southern California my adult life and have completed careers as a Police Captain, Marine Corps Officer and Mayor. Have a PhD, two Masters and a Law Degree.

To see what the book is, I think we need to review the author's objective. He states that for many years during his writings of public policy he has been interested in the studies relating to the brain and psychology. The author says that he is borrowing a technique from Rousseau to create personalities to bring life to the ideas he discusses. I think there is a connection with being concerned about public policy and the brains that create public policy. Also in general I think we are interested in why we and others act the way we do and how we function mentally. In addition, we get a cross section of the economic and social levels in the United States, and visit inner large cities, Aspen and Davos.

The objective is a tall order. Some other commentators have mentioned a comparison of the outstanding work of Malcom Gladwell, who is quoted several times in this book. I believe a more apt comparison is with James Michener, who placed an even grander task before himself and created large sweeping novels. The criticisms of Mr Brooks book match those of Mr Michener as far as literary depth is concerned. All three authors in this paragraph are bringing us a huge amount of quality information extremely well written in an interesting manner with references for further study.

After you finish this very important book, please take some time to reflect on how many significant studies have been used to create this work, and how adept, enjoyable, compelling and memorable the author's efforts are.

I have long appreciated Mr. Brooks' not too far right of center commentary both in print and on NPR, and Bobos in Paradise was a fascinating book. Surely, The Social Animal would be in keeping with his entertaining, if sometimes quirky, writing.

Unfortunately, Brooks' has stretched too far this time, by trying to pile what seems like every bit of sociological, medical and anthropological research into a single volume, carried by the thin and ultimately poorly drawn use of two mythological characters. The book jacket tells us that "this is the happiest story you'll ever read. It's about two people who lead wonderfully fulfilling lives."

Sadly, this is neither a happy story nor does it appear that these "people" (who seem more robotic than real) are drawn as being "wonderfully fulfilled. Far from being the story of a typical middle class American, Harold's childhood, education, and career read like some kind of fairy tale for most 21st century readers. As a counterpoint, Erica is drawn to pull in every kind of demographic that Harold is not. Her mother is the child of immigrants from mainland China and her father is Mexican American; "the genetic combination accounted for her striking looks." She is sometimes homeless, sometimes not. The early part of the book is primarily devoted to setting up their background, with some data thrown in here and there to tell us why these made up characters represent "real" research findings.

All too quickly, the unreality of these characterizations (don't decide to write fiction, sir; I don't think it is your calling) soon spins out of control, even as the amount of data Brooks throws at us begins to mount into an uncontrollable pile of...stuff.

In the end, I am not really sure *why* this book was written, and I definitely found myself wondering why I was continuing to read it. As it was, I barely skimmed the last few chapters, bored and less and less interested.

Still, I could not bring myself to give The Social Animal only one star. There were enough flashes of Brooks' style to keep me reading as far as I did. One example might all by itself have raised this to a two star book. On page 56, he presents a vignette familiar to anyone who has ever parented a reluctant second grader. After professing to have no homework, little Harold fetches his backpack to begin his evening's work.

"Harold's backpack was an encyclopedia of boyhood interests and suggested that Harold was well on his way to a promising career as a homeless person. Inside, if one dug down through the various geological layers, one could find old pretzels, juice boxes, toy cars, Pokemon cards, PSP games, stray drawings, old assignments, worksheets from earlier grades, apples, gravel, newspapers, scissors, and copper piping. The backpack weighed slightly less than a Volkswagen."

Tiny bits of writing like this aside, I definitely do not recommend buying this book. If you want to cull some similar bits of Mr. Brooks' writings, or if you want to peruse the index or footnotes for possible references to other, better texts, check this out from the library. Just don't waste both your time and your money on what is really a non-essential book.

In the book we follow the lives of the fictional characters Harold and Erica.
And through them we get a lot of amazing insights
to what science really teaches us about real human lives.
The blend of fiction underpinned by science is a treat to read,
and Brooks certainly deepens our understanding of the science
by introducing us to these two lives.

Sure, there are certainly a lot of words in the book.
But as Brook teaches us, words are necessary
for guiding thought and communication.
And we can know a lot from the words
a person sends out. Indeed, these words are the tip of the iceberg of the intelligence
they are coming from.
As a matter of fact, the easiest way to measure someone else's intelligence
is through their vocabulary. And people who are
getting to know each other probably subconsciously measure
each others vocabularies to see if they are on the same
level.
Which btw. speaks well for Brook's own intelligence.

The information we deal with in our world has
many sources and Brooks tries to give justice to them them all.
From our deep evolutionary past we get genetics.
Culture and Religion goes back thousands
of years and shapes us and out thoughts more
than we are ever aware of.
Families goes back decades, if not centuries, and determines where we start
in life, and what ideas we are brought up with.
Education goes back a couple of years and
helps us with the here and now we
are situated in.
And all sources are important in forming us to the become the people we
are.

Still, it is not easy to describe our minds -
Afterall, they are enormously complicated
things with an endless series of processes going on in parallel.
An eco system consisting of patterns, reactions and sensations
all competing for control over an organism.
And with no captain sitting somewhere high
above everything else calling the shots.

But, through the story of Harold and Erica
Brooks cleverly brings in new viewpoints to help
us understand what might be going
on.
It is all very illuminating and a pleasure to read.

This is an ambitious book. How do you take a survey type approach of all modern thought on human behavior and thought and package it into one book? Well, David Brooks chose to create two fictional characters and follow them from birth to death. That's a great idea if you think about it. Following our two characters Harold and Erica gives Brooks the vehicle he needs to drive through all this content. Along the way he stops at various points in their lives to express a certain field of study or school of thought. Loved the concept, was fascinated by much of the content, and was pleased with Brooks' use of humor here and there to keep it light. I like Brooks and I like his writing style. In fact I like how he speaks in person and on television as well, so I was quite bummed that the Audio Book was read by someone else who I thought didn't do a great job. Still, that has nothing to do with the content of the book.

The main drag of the book was the two characters that Brooks chose to use. Both characters represent wildly out of the norm personas and experiences which is probably good because it's more interesting that having them be underachieving students who top out in life as assistant managers at a local airport Hertz office, but also too bad because they can be hard to relate to after a few common type school experiences. Harold (the boy/man) comes off as kind of a slacker who seems to luck into a bunch of decent positions and then apparently writes books every other year like it's no thing after stumbling into a dream job. Erica (the girl/woman) is the outsider turned amoral elitist who starts as a confused brat and turns into a confused and out of touch Executive Brancher. I hate these two and wondered why two people with such a distant understanding of people could be expected to have risen so high. Still... perhaps Brooks doesn't care for them either - and he's closer to D.C. than I am. Maybe he's just making a statement with these two about leadership and who we allow to get there. Either way, I could have read that they died sad and pitiful deaths midway through life and I probably would have immediately have forgotten about them and kept reading the content.

All in all, strong book, but if I ever see "Harold" or "Erica" in real life, I'm more likely to poke them in the eye than shake their hand. Sorry - just annoying characters.

I have never read anything quite like this. David Brooks did a masterful job integrating the wisdom of the ages with current research to illustrate (as opposed to explain) how our minds work. By his own admission, only the surface is scratched and many holes are filled with what I presume are David's best guesses, but still, I was delighted with a new insight every few pages.

Ninety five percent of what are brains do is sub conscious and not subject to our conscious control. IQ is a big deal perhaps to our early 20s but then other qualities, mostly learned, take us the rest of the way to who we become. You can memorize faster with your arms in front of you rather than crossed on your chest. Some of what I knew about the the sub conscious was validated eg. meditation works, stay positive, taking full responsibility for your kids has a massive payoff for them; but most of the author's insights were new and fresh to me.

The brilliant part of this work is boiling down a huge amount of social science research and presenting it to us in two parallel biographies of imagined characters, Erica and Harold, from the beginning to the end of their lives. The book bogs down when David dwells on presidential politics but that is small price to pay for the never ending string of "I never considered that before" moments.

You will enjoy this.

I feel a little conflicted about this book. There were parts I really loved, and there were parts that felt like I was trudging through mud. The discussions about the two main characters' childhood and adolescence were such wonderful additions to The Social Animal. I even (very embarrassingly since I usually read in public places) found myself laughing out loud during certain passages. And then there were points in the book that made me feel like the author was reading my mind.

On the other hand, there were several parts of the book that I felt I was struggling through. As the characters reach their post-college years, it becomes evident that Brooks is not a fiction writer as he lacks the ability to develop the characters. He spends ages harping on the companies that the characters work for in a manner that mirrors the case studies I read (a.k.a. skimmed and didn't enjoy) in school. I understand that he was trying to describe why certain companies failed as a result of the personalities who ran them, however he was a little long-winded at times, and his main point got lost in all the mumbo jumbo. He would also throw out terms like "shacking up" and "über-oldster" (in reference to a very old person) that just didn't seem to fit with the overall tone of the book. I kept getting images of an old, overly-tanned man with an overly-busty trophy wife on one arm and a margarita in the other trying to seem "hip". Now try to picture that...see, it's just not a good look.

Definitely not one of my favorites, but I wouldn't discount the book altogether. I often feel that with books in this style, authors tend to point out things that seem to be common sense, so you don't really gain anything new from them. David Brooks uses tons of research studies to illustrate his points. Some studies are a little far-fetched in relation to the story, but some provide some very valuable insight into the way people operate. If you find this sort of stuff interesting, then by all means read it!!

I've been something of a fan of David Brooks' work for a long time - while I may not have always agreed with his points, I think his talent and intelligence are inarguable - so I was eager to read this book. The fact that in it, his characters were allegorical representations of so many scientific theories seemed intriguing, and a conceit to which I thought Mr. Brooks could do justice. I'm sorry to say that that did not prove to be the case.

Others have provided brilliant synopses of the theories and characters, so I won't waste anyone's time rehashing all of that. The most important things to note about this book, in my view, are the fact that it all too often ventures into mind-numbingly boring territory, and that it ultimately seems largely to be an excuse for Mr. Brooks to ramble on and on - often miring the text in pomposity - for far too many pages. Further, while the characters (uninteresting and poorly conceived as they were) could have been used to great effect in order to truly explore the various scientific themes mentioned, they were instead quite clearly only tools utilized to bring the author's own point of view to the fore. Certainly, this is his work, so that was his prerogative, but when it's presented as a true study and exploration of umpteen theories, one would hope that those theories would have been given more importance rather than simply being the means by which he substantiated his own views. Instead, at the end of the day, the result of his efforts in this case was too much information laboriously detailed.

This book just plodded on and on, and it was a real chore to pick it up and continue reading, but I forced myself to do so only because I hate to start a book and not finish it. When I was done reading it, though, the biggest impression it left on me was that I had wasted a lot of time reading it, hoping it would get better and do justice to Mr. Brooks' talent, only to be disappointed when it was all said and done. Now, it is true the man is smart and that comes through loud and clear at many different points, which is why I went ahead and gave this two stars instead of one. However, the overarching point here is that what could have been a truly interesting book wound up being a real let-down, because it could have been so much better.

I listened to this book (it was a good listen). I consider myself to be sort of a liberal, mostly because I find "conservatives" to be shockingly out of touch with most everything. (e.g. what's up with the Republican presidential race these days?)

I know David Brooks often takes the conservative side of things, but in this book I think he has pointed the way toward a new synthesis of these opposing views, and given some insight into how we've gotten into such a divisive and sorry state - socially, culturally, politically, and governmentally.

You take some common sense approaches to investing in human beings - that may have to be implemented by governmental programs because no one else can or will - (early childhood development, nurturing institutions, educational opportunities and socially reinforced priorities), you acknowledge that we are not single-faceted rational beings, and you have the starting point for making the future of our society more rewarding and meaningful for all of us.

I greatly appreciated the observations on human nature given in this book, and agree with David Brooks' sadness that the term "socialism" is already spoken for, in cultural and politically negative terms. Socialism, as he would use it, is exactly what we could use around here.

I find the Publishers Weekly review above to be cynical and out of touch with the real fabric of this book. Was the reviewer even listening to what Brooks was trying to say? This is not a "wobbly treatise" "restating platitudes". To stop there in an interpretation is sort of like holding on to feudal concepts in the age of enlightenment. We'll be transforming here, and those who don't join in the ride will get lonely and stay angry.

I did a small thought experiment where I put myself in David Brooks's position as he sat down to write this book. I've done extensive research into how our experience shape us (and we shape our experiences), but I don't want to simply write a summary of what I've discovered. Those books have already been written. They're called psychology textbooks. How can I structure this research to make it compelling? How do I make these disparate studies interact and connect in a manner that will make the book flow while also providing an opportunity to showcase my skills at social commentary?

What did I learn from this exercise? Brooks spent too much effort making his research into a coherent story. He works so hard on balancing descriptions of the psychology research with the life histories of his fictional protagonists that the treatment of both elements is superficial. The book fails as a story because the characters are stereotypical cliches and there is nothing offered in the way of motivation or drama. The contrived narrative distracts from the real subject of the book, the numerous ways our environment impacts our thinking without our conscious recognition of that influence.

Brooks is far more successful as a reporter on recent psychology research than he is as a storyteller. I find the studies described in the book fascinating. Brooks must share my enthusiasm. He has reviewed a tremendous number of studies. He didn't need to tell us about all of them though. The book would have been more interesting if he had focused on the most relevant and interesting discoveries rather than taking a grand tour through the field. He decided to take us on a made dash through the Louvre to get a quick glimpse at everything rather than taking his time to thoroughly explore a selection of the most significant masterpieces.

Brooks attempts to turn what he's learned and described to us into a comprehensive approach to a better society. The ideas for social reform proposed by his male protagonist ring hollow. I almost got the feeling that Brooks did the research to justify his societal views rather than developing a new perspective from what he learned during his research.

The book is worth reading as a quick introduction to the current state of thinking about how we perceive our world and how those perceptions shape our actions (at least as understood by David Brooks). Don't waste your time reading the life histories of his protagonists though.

I'm shocked that so many reviewers found the main characters (used for illustration) so manipulated & superficial. I found them so engrossing I couldn't put the book down since they seemed to mirror people I knew and the haphazard--almost chance--idiosyncrasies of life many of us experience.

Others knocked Brooks' failure to explore the ramifications of every study, but his purpose is not to scholarly evaluate every study of every issue relating to man, thought, and society. Brooks is tying together a variety of disparate studies--from several distinct fields--to give us a picture of 'life,' and he is covering a lot of ground to do it. It's an expansive undertaking.

The first 300 or so pages flow as an easy-to-read revelation of analysis. After that he moves to the political realm, running through his pet theories in broad generalizations and making conclusions that aren't as well grounded in studies. (Example: pg 326 he makes the case that layoffs from offshore outsourcing in the first 10 yrs of the 21st century accounted for only 1.9% of layoffs, yet his annotation shows the study published in 2004. I can't get 10 yrs of research out of a study that could only have contained 4 yrs of 21st century data. I'm not sure that fits in with the thrust of the book, either).
He is illuminating, and he makes you think. You can disagree with his analysis, but if the whole point is introspection and gaining an understanding--using research and historic writings to gain the bigger picture--that's a good thing. I DID find his use of vulgar language--in his own voice, not that of the characters--unnerving, unexpected, and gratuitous...totally out of context...seems to cheapen his presentation.

I began here by reading the most negative reviews, as I could not understand how this marvellous book could have garnered such a low average ranking. I still don't, and I think those folks have perhaps missed the point. First, Brooks does state that he wished to use the model of Rousseau's "Emile, or, On Education" as the fictional construct for the book. I think that was a brilliant move. Those who decry the supposed failings of Brooks to have created a "believable" novel have I think missed the parallel, and have I would guess never read Rousseau's masterpiece.* But Brooks goes far beyond Rousseau in this regard, building a superb book about how humans are emotionally and morally constructed through their evolution. I am one of those who have NOT read a great deal about the products of modern brain science -- I read mostly in economics and history, including the history of economics -- and so I found this book very very helpful in that regard.

But pragmatically, here we have a book by one of our very best "conservative" writers which completely cuts the legs out from under the pseudo-"conservatives," specially the "free market" radicals with their obsession both with "rational" individualism and with the nonsense of the "rational market" hypothesis of those who are still so naive as to swallow whole what they perceive as the doctrines of "classical" economics. (These people are of course not "conservatives" at all, but are, rather, extreme radical liberals. It is as far as I know only in America that the terms "conservative" and "liberal" have got so thoroughly twisted about, as anyone in Europe could tell you.) Without actually naming her, for example, he exposes Ayn Rand for the sociopath she was. (Those who don't get this need to learn about the fact that she idealized a sociopathic convicted serial killer and adopted his to-hell-with-anyone-else "philosophy" as her own.) He does name Adam Smith as having in fact written a superb "other" book -- "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" -- without a reading of which his "The Wealth of Nations" can make no sense; and in fact Smith himself thought his "Moral Sentiments" the more important of his two books. (Smith was Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Glasgow, and thus very much a part of the British Enlightenment that Brooks so much admires -- as do I.) And so forth.

Brooks has given us a solid corrective to the self-destructive extreme individualism America has been increasingly adopting -- if only enough Americans would read this book. The problem is of course that the overwhelming majority of Americans read nothing of any consequence at all -- and some of those who do, fail to understand what they have just read.

* (If you wish to, but don't read French, the translation I thoroughly recommend is that by the late, great Allan Bloom. My father (University of Wisconsin '30) urged me, when I was young, to read "Emile," but I could not stick it out with the obtuse translation that was in his library. When I first learned of Bloom's translation I grabbed it ASAP and couldn't put it down! -- just as I couldn't put Brooks' "The Social Animal" down when I was lucky enough to discover it!)

I read this book slowly and often without great interest, even though I often find David Brooks' columns in the Times engaging (without loving his politics). In addition I am interested in psychology and recent research in brain science so this book ought to have grabbed me. It didn't really. It is a kind of novel but the characters seemed flattened and did not come to life. They exist to illustrate recent conventional wisdom in psychology and neurology. What does it take to be successful according to the empirical studies that Brooks summarizes and cherry picks? That is the question this book aims at answering.

I looked in vein for a reflection on the uniqueness and diversity of individual human beings. This book is quite lengthy and often comes off as a guide to how to do well in the American upper middle class. Great religious commitment and soaring artistic gifts, the kind of love that poets write about, rage against injustice, the sort of political passion that brings about beneficial social change--the great highs and lows of human experience--are missing. I'd rather read a nonfiction book on psychology to learn about the latest research and read a great novel to learn about the human experience.

My first exposure to The Social Animal was when David Brooks was promoting it on the Today Show. I was intrigued and immediately went on the store to read the product page and look at the reviews. I was still interested, so I ordered it. I am a retired high school teacher, mother of 3 adult children, mother-in-law to 3 more, and a grandmother of almost 6 (2 are due in a couple of months). I have always been interested in knowing more about why people do what they do.

This book did not disappoint. I learned so much and was given insights into things I had not even considered. As I read the book, I kept some post-it flags nearby and flagged anything I wanted to share with someone else or reread later. I have around 3 dozen of those sticking out of the pages. I have used several to go back and reference a passage in the book. I really enjoyed the way the book was written. I liked following 2 "real" people, including their parents and heritage. These stories were mixed with much academic research, so the stories were backed up with lots of supporting information.

I want to share one of my favorite parts. I've read it to many of my teacher friends. Remember, I was a high school teacher. "The students would burn out if forced to spend their entire day amidst the social intensity of the cafeteria and the hallway. Fortunately, the school authorities also schedule dormant periods, called classes, during which students can rest their minds and take a break from the pressures of social categorization. Students correctly understand, though adults appear not to, that socialization is the most intellectually demanding and morally important thing they will do in high school." Now I understand why teaching my students geometry was such a challenge!

Mr. Brooks covers lots of intriguing scientific facts and theories behind human behavior. The area that is emphasized the most is the importance of the subconscious mind, and how conscious thought is subservient to it. All of this material is presented through a couple of fictional characters and their story from birth through old age. For readers of non-fiction, this can be a bit of a put off. There is potential confusion surrounding the behavior and thoughts of the fictional characters and whether they have any factual basis or scientific merit. Mr. Brooks breaks away from the stories intermittently throughout the book to discuss the more serious topics, but intertwining fiction and non-fiction gives short shrift to both. While the material presented is pertinent and plentiful, the fictional account detracts and marginalizes the serious work here.

From the acknowledgements section, "This book is an attempt to... integrate science and psychology with sociology, politics, cultural commentary, and the literature of success."

A day after reading the book from cover to cover, I can recall considerably less factual material than fiction, but I'll never forget this: "Measured at its highest potential, the conscious mind still has a processing capacity 200,000 times weaker than the unconscious." Perhaps my unconscious mind feels differently about this book, and I'm not aware of it....

This book has to be the most impressive book I have read in many years and I belong to three book clubs.Two years ago, as a member, I attended the annual meeting of the Association of Psychological Science in Washington, D.C.where David Brooks was a featured speaker.At that time he expressed the view that policy makers and the general public were generally inadequately exposed to the findings from the field of psychology and the other behavioral sciences and possibly overly exposed to writings from the field of economics. which can create failures in the implementation of public policies and a failure to undestand the true causes of current social and political issues and events. He is obviously trying to acquaint the general public with some interesting and valuable insights derived from research and ideas from the behavioral sciences. The 300 references and notes demonstrate that he has carried out extensive reading of such scholarly research and theorizing over the past few decades.He seems especially interested in research on human thinking and the role of emotions,rationalism,and intuition in the process of human decision making as it relates to the making of choices in social relationships and situations. Education gets much attention. By attaching such a selective group of scholarly studies and theories to the entire lives of two characters who are intelligent and well educated male and female professionals, he makes his book much more engaging and accessible to the general public.The book does require close rather than superficial reading as all significant books do.

In The Social Animal, author David Brooks follows the lives of two fictional characters and weaves together narrative, research, trendy ideas, and barely-concealed personal bias as he demonstrates that we must understand humans not as independent and rational agents but as complex and social beings. Judging from the number of passages I highlighted, I can say this book provoked a lot of insights especially about the role and limits of formal education (the field I work in). I enjoyed following Harold and Erica through the stages of their lives, both in their human flaws (Erica's early temper and later adultery and Harold's drinking problem) and their ultimately uber-successful careers which allowed Brooks to pull together topics like attraction, politics, poverty, the arts, and business leadership among others.

One choice which I found interesting was to make Harold the typical white guy from a middle-class family (presumably representing what is familiar to both the author and most of the readers) while Erica seems to represent Everyone Else as a Chicana-Chinese woman from a single-parent poor home - although ultimately her career success eclipses Harold's, Brooks presents a Harold-centric worldview, at one point even delving into how the British Enlightenment was superior to the French enlightenment.

I held back on giving a fifth star because I would have liked to see more connections to research especially after the first few chapters. The book was best when it was living up to its subtitle, making strong and well-sourced arguments about how our brains and societies function.

I like David Brooks a lot, although I don't necessarily agree with his politics, so I eagerly picked this book up. Like many, however, I found the two stories--Erica and Harold, and on a parallel track, the components of human behavior, broadly speaking--very distracting. Brooks writes well, and I'd get engrossed in the characters, and then all of a sudden they'd disappear for awhile. When next I would come upon them, years had passed, with annoying gaps.

Having said that, some chapters shine, especially the chapter on politics. Brooks does an amazing portrait of a presidential aspirant, who recruits Erica to his campaign. He then turns to the factors that motivate political choices, with some really interesting statistics that will surprise you. Mixing fiction and non-fiction in this way, though, is a tough act to pull off. What happens to Erica and politics??? We get a few hints, but nothing more in the narrative.

Brooks writes very well, as I said, and I found the ending very affecting. Maybe he should try fiction? A good attempt, but doesn't hit the mark.

The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement by David Brooks

"The Social Animal" is an interesting study of the unconscious, the mental processes that are inaccessible to consciousness but provide us with the skills needed to thrive. Told through the lives of a fictitious couple, Erica and Harold, Brooks weaves a wealth of scientific research into his narrative. He uses the characters to show how life develops. Unfortunately, the ambitious concept didn't work for me. The mixing of fictional characters with current research just burdens the reader with an unnecessary story that takes away from the exceptional amount of research presented. In short, the parts are greater than the whole. This ambitious 448-page book is composed of the following twenty-two chapters: 1. Decision Making, 2. The Map Meld, 3. Mindsight, 4. Mapmaking, 5. Attachment, 6. Learning, 7. Norms, 8. Self-Control, 9. Culture, 10. Intelligence, 11. Choice Architecture, 12. Freedom and Commitment, 13. Limerence, 14. The Grand Narrative, 15. Metis, 16. The Insurgency, 17. Getting Older, 18. Morality, 19. The Leader, 20. The Soft Side, 21. The Other Education, and 22. Meaning.

Positives:
1. Eye-opening amount of current research. By far the biggest strength of this book.
2. Engaging prose and a touch of humor to boot. Mr. Brooks is a gifted author.
3. The fascinating topic of the unconscious.
4. Makes very good use of current research from converging scientific fields and weaves it into the lives of his two main fictional characters.
5. Many interesting facts interspersed seamlessly throughout the narrative. "Geoffrey Miller notes that most adults have a vocabulary of about sixty thousand words. To build that vocabulary, children must learn ten to twenty words a day between the ages of eighteen months and eighteen years. And yet the most frequent one hundred words account for 60 percent of all conversations. The most common four thousand words account for 98 percent of conversations."
6. The author provides countless examples of what the unconscious system looks like. "Damasio developed a theory, which he called the `somatic marker hypothesis,' on the role of emotion in human cognition. Parts of the theory are disputed--scientists differ about how much the brain and the body interact--but his key point is that emotions measure the value of something, and help unconsciously guide us as we navigate through life--away from things that are likely to lead to pain and toward things that are likely to lead to fulfillment."
7. A lot of interesting research on the mind. "The mind is a blindingly complicated series of parallel processes. There is no captain sitting in a cockpit making decisions. There is no Cartesian theater--a spot where all the different processes and possibilities come together to get ranked and where actions get planned. Instead, as Nobel Laureate Gerald Edelman put it, the brain looks like an ecosystem, a fantastically complex associative network of firings, patterns, reactions, and sensations all communicating with and responding to different parts of the brain and all competing for a piece of control over the organism." "The human mind is an overconfidence machine. The conscious level gives itself credit for things it really didn't do and confabulates tales to create the illusion it controls things it really doesn't determine."
8. The author is quite candid about sex. "Men want to do the same sexual acts regardless of education levels, but female sexual preferences differ by education, culture, and status level."
9. Interesting facts regarding new mothers, "Women who give birth to boys have shorter life expectancies because the boys' testosterone can compromise their immune system." "Babies are born with a core knowledge of the world, which gives them a head start with this task."
10. The author does a really good job of describing how his research influences human nature. "Many scientists believe that the ability to unconsciously share another's pain is a building block of empathy, and through that emotion, morality."
11. The brain defined, "A brain is the record of a life. The networks of neural connections are the physical manifestation of your habits, personality, and predilections. You are the spiritual entity that emerges out of the material networks in your head." "The human brain is built to take conscious knowledge and turn it into unconscious knowledge." Great stuff!
12. Research with practical implications, "A person who is interrupted while performing a task takes 50 percent more time to complete it and makes 50 percent more errors. The brain doesn't multitask well. It needs to get into a coherent flow, with one network of firings leading coherently to the next."
13. The concept of emergence. "The problem with this approach is that it has trouble explaining dynamic complexity, the essential feature of a human being, a culture, or a society. So recently there has been a greater appreciation for the structure of emergent systems. Emergent systems exist when different elements come together and produce something that is greater than the sum of their parts." Examples of emergent systems: the brain, culture, and marriage to name a few.
14. A look at culture. "All cultures share certain commonalities, stored in our genetic inheritance."
15. Intelligence and IQ. "Environmental factors can play a huge role in shaping IQ."
16. The unconscious mind, "The unconscious consists of many different modules, each with its own function, whereas the conscious mind is just one module. Level 1 has much higher processing capacity. Measured at its highest potential, the conscious mind still has a processing capacity 200,000 times weaker than the unconscious."
17. An interesting chapter on morality. "As Michael Gazzaniga wrote in his book Human, `It has been hard to find any correlation between moral reasoning and proactive moral behavior, such as helping people. In fact, in most studies, none has been found'." One of the best chapters of the book.
18. Interesting discussion on politics. Author works hard to present happy medium. "Therefore, freedom should not be the ultimate end of politics. The ultimate focus of political activity is the character of the society."
19. Social mobility, "A healthy society is a mobile society, one in which everybody has a shot at the good life, in which everybody has reason to strive, in which people rise and fall according to their deserts."

Negatives:
1. The book was at least a hundred pages too long and thus forces the reader to waste some of their finite time on this earth.
2. Important terms like "God" and "soul" were never defined. What is a soul exactly? What characteristics does a "soul" have that would enable me to know objectively that it exists let alone how it works in reality. "The desire for limerence is at its most profound during those transcendent moments when people feel themselves fused with nature and with God, when the soul lifts up and a feeling of oneness with the universe pervades their being."
3. I have some problems with some of the assertions, "As Dumarsais declared in the encyclopedia, "Reason is to the philosopher what grace is to the Christian. Grace moves the Christian to act, reason moves the philosopher." What exactly moves a non-Christian to act?
4. The author is human after all and suffers from confirmation bias. The author focuses on research that confirms his theory but doesn't share research that doesn't. "In the first place, human beings evolved to work in small bands. And in fact there's a great deal of evidence to suggest that much of the time groups think better than individuals." There is also a lot of research that shows that some of the most noteworthy findings occurred by introverts working alone.
5. No formal bibliography which is a shame considering how many books the author references.
6. No links to notes, what a waste of the linking capability of the Kindle.

In summary, the non-fictional part of the book is excellent; unfortunately, the reader must navigate through the often-times verbose sections of the fictional characters. It's an interesting and ambitious idea that just didn't work for me. However, the author should be commended for the amount of interesting current research and for trying a novel concept. In short, there are better and more succinct books on the many topics introduced in this book but it's a book I will recommend with reservations noted.

Further suggestions: "Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior (Vintage)" by Leonard Mlodinow, "Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking" by Susan Cain, "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" by Malcolm Gladwell, "The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business" by Charles Duhigg, "Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us" by Daniel H. Pink, "The Believing Brain" by Michael Shermer, "Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain" by David Eagleman, "The Scientific American Brave New Brain" by Judith Horstman, "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" by Steven Pinker, "Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain" and "Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique", by Michael S. Gazzaniga, "Hardwired Behavior: What Neuroscience Reveals about Morality" by Laurence Tancredi, "Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality" by Patricia S. Churchland, "The Myth of Free Will" by Cris Evatt, "SuperSense" by Bruce M. Hood and "The Brain and the Meaning of Life" by Paul Thagard.

David Brooks, noted New York Times columnist, attempts the heroic task of explaining the entire breadth of the human experience in one book. Taking cues from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's classic "Emile", Brooks creates two fictional characters from birth to death, and explains how strong the social connections we make influence our vision, values, morals and decisions. The story is a clever backdrop for Brooks to present scientific study after study showing the importance of the fabric of society and the value of social capital. Nearly every facet of life is attempted to be explained in this book, nearly 450 pages in length.

The ending of the book is somewhat disappointing, as the characters begin an end-of-life spiritual quest--Brooks seems to drift away from scientific study at this point altogether and simply brings in some of his personal preconceptions. Despite this flaw, the book is excellent overall. The social sciences are considered a "soft science" because of the nearly infinite variables that may influence the human mind. It is an impossible task to disentangle these influences and create neat, easy hypothesis. Yet Brooks' attempt at objective answers for his protagonists' lives is both valiant and worthwhile.

On the negative side, the device of mapping cognitive theory to the life stories of two fictional characters fell very flat. There were passages that felt like secular sermons on morality, character and the cognitive revolution - very preachy and in need of pruning.

There were a lot of take-aways from this book. I think it would have served better as three focused books rather than one long narrative attempting to cover various phases of the lives of two fictional characters. As a previous reviewer pointed out, the research and examples felt cherry picked and inevitable.

Having said that, there are some powerful messages here. For me these were:

- the societal ills that result from governments creating artificial environments and dismantling organically formed communities
- the notion that civilisations that put individuals ahead of societies and communities are setting themselves up for social ills and polarisation
- the idea that the subconscious/emotional and conscious/logical spheres of the mind must work in harmony in order for the brain to function well

I'm not sorry I put the time in on this book. (Okay, I listened to it via Audible, but still that was 16 hours plus of my attention I gave to it.)

Sure there were parts that dragged and the central device of fictional biographies didn't work well, but what I gained was of value to me and, I feel, has changed my outlook and body of knowledge on concepts with which I am wrangling.

I must be the ideal audience for this book because I found it to be a wonderful mix of great writing, new ideas, and interesting information.

The goals of Brooks' book are "to synthesize [recent scientific] findings into one narrative... to describe how this research influences the way we understand human nature... to draw out the social, political, and moral implications of these findings."

He achieves the goal of aggregating the research admirably. I don't consider myself well read on brain and cognitive sciences but I read several science blogs and had encountered many of the info-bites he introduces, many of which are extremely recent. A random sampling of research results he mentions:
"six-month-old babies can spot the different facial features of different monkeyse, even though, to adults, [the monkeys] all look the same."
"Anthropologists tell us that all cultures distinguish colors. When they do, all cultures begin with words for white and black. If the culture adds a word for a third color, it is always red."

Brookes uses a device of narrating the lives of 2 invented people, Erica and Harold. For example, to illustrate ideas on decision making, he introduces Erica's coworker Raymond whose "knowledge of his own shortcomings was encyclopedic. He knew he had trouble comparing more than two options at a time... so he would build brackets and move from one binary comparison to the next. He knew he liked hearing evidence that confirmed his opinions, so he asked Erica and others to give him the counterevidence first," etc. After describing a situation within the context of the narrative, Brooks jumps in to elaborate with more information. I feared this tactic would be too forced and would thereby fall on its face but he actually pulls it off! He binds up all the ideas in a cohesive story that has surprisingly sympathetic characters and a completely unexpectedly interesting character-driven plot.

Brooks uses his characters' lives and personalities to illustrate his ideas. One theme that arises is that rational thought is far from the dominant component of human reality: "Unaware of what is going on deep down inside, the conscious mind assigns itself the starring role... people are still blind to the way unconscious affections and aversions shape daily life." Underestimating the importance of culture in forming the subconscious and thus human behaviors causes the government to misdirect their energies, focusing on "money and guns" rather than community. Brooks argues for a more paternalistic government that shapes culture: "You can pump money into poor areas, but without cultures that foster self-control, you won't get social mobility... You can establish elections but without responsible citizens, democracy won't flourish... it was not enough to secure a village; they had to hold it so that people could feel safe, they had to build schools, medical facilites, courts, and irrigation ditches; they had to reconvene town councils... the hardest political activity- warfare- depended on the softest social skills- listening, understanding, and building trust."

Brooks' characteristic writing style is funny, engaging, and smart, but sometimes sarcastic and intentionally provokative/offensive. Example: "Like most upper- amd upper-middle-class children, these kids are really good at obscure sports. Centuries ago, members of the educated class discovered that they could no longer compete in football, baseball, and basketball, so they stole lacrosse from the American Indians to give them something to dominate." I'd seen this style of soft science writing before, most recently in a book called Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior. Brooks manages to keep his punchiness sparse enough that I don't tire of it but if that style doesn't appeal to you, you may want to steer clear.

At times Brooks writes beautifully, surprising me with his poetic phrasing, so for me this book also holds artistic value. In writing about the human mind, he explores happiness and the meaning of life, pulling from sources ranging from Walt Whitman to Poincare. Describing Harold's impending death, he writes, "his wife and his nurses served him with a care, patience, and devotion that surpassed all expectation. Their efforts were more dear to him because he knew that he could never repay them... It was hard at first to simply fall backward into their love."

This book is great for someone who's interested in the human mind and wants an incomplete overview of recent developments in that area. It's also great for people who are interested in a unique perspective on how human nature relates to society and politics. Keep in mind Brooks is not a scientist- he's a journalist interested in culture and he uses various studies to inform his view but does not analyze the science. This book does not offer deep analysis of studies, nor does it come close to being exhaustive in its depiction of all the research done in this field.

I think much of the criticism of this book in the reviews seen here may be due to expecting or wishing for something different from the author's intention. Yes, the two main characters remain very 2 dimensional throughout the book, but this is not a novel or a character study, it is a report back from the scientific world of behavior research to a non scientific audience. These two characters are there merely to tie the concepts together. I surprised myself when in the last chapter I was extraordinarily moved by the passing of one one of the main characters that I had not taken very seriously until that moment. A ground breaking new theory or treatise about human life on earth, maybe not, but a really great read with plenty of slightly pre-digested knowledge for a reader that wants to be entertained and informed, yes, I would say a really successful effort from that perspective.

I wish I could have read this twenty years ago. One of the disadvantages of growing up poor is that you don't get to experience how others are raised. There is often a complete unawareness of the consciousness created by mindful life paths leaving the disadvantaged to witness only the rewards that are claimed. In David Brook's book The Social Animal, he uses two fictional characters to demonstrate that it takes far more than an affluent environment to develop the psychological resources needed to succeed in the modern age. Part of his premise is that the unconscious replication of social and moral habits bears more fruit than had been previously assumed.

Throughout the text, as the characters are born, grow, meet each other, marry and grow old, we are given a microscope into the myriad of subtle cues that progress them into the world. At a distance each cue might seem random but most of them lead the characters to fill an empty compartment of their lives. Each lesson learned is explained by the author using the findings of numerous studies in psychology, sociology and behavioral economics. It is downright fascinating to see these studies used in a fictional example where the author has liberty to make connections between thought, perception, reaction, intuition and determination.

While I did learn many new facts concerning the intricacies of human interaction there was one persistent notion that continued to reveal itself. The notion is that in our society the way forward might very well consist of embracing many of the humbler attributes that we are leaving behind - life long friendships, lasting marriages and a sense of community. Perhaps the key to our social, political and economic future is accepting that we are meant to love each other in order to survive. Love is not a victory along the path, it's not a merit badge to be shown at reunions. It is the path, the only path that can save us all.

What I enjoyed most about this books were the sections that elucidated on the psychology of groups
and in-group biases. For example, in one experiment mentioned in this book, two groups of young boys, as much alike as possible, are sent to summer camp. The two groups are initially segregated from one another. After meeting, each groups instinctively construct polarizing identities to distinguish themselves from the other group. It seems to me that

The impact of socialization on perception was also interesting: we see that in certain Asian cultures, individuals tend to view a scene as a pattern of inter-relationships, while westerners look for specific agents performing actions.

The consequences of isolation; the chemistry behind loneliness and depression, and their resulting behaviors, were also fascinating.

I can see why Brooks chose to create fictional characters in order to discuss the chemistry of attraction, romance, childbearing, education, etc... it didn't bother me as much as it apparently bothered other readers. I think the issues of identity and the need for belonging that are described in this book make it very timely in our internet-age where personal interactions are diminished.

It was a fascinating book with many big and grand ideas. I thought the use of Harold and Erica and the lives they lived was a perfect framing device. It made me think of what is important in this life and will do the same for anyone that reads and thinks about the true meaning of the book

Mr. Brooks has chosen as his subject the broad swath of human civilization, with all its ever-present questions: What makes us happy? How should we bring up our children? What role should government play in our lives?

There's a lot of wisdom in these pages, mainly drawn from famous experiments in the social sciences. Nearly all of these were familiar to me, but that's because I went to a liberal arts college, listen to NPR, read The Atlantic, etc. If you don't have that same level of familiarity with academia, then The Social Animal is a great place to start. I'd recommend it to motivated high schoolers in particular.

High schoolers would also be more inclined than I am to forgive Mr. Brooks his overwrought prose which, sadly, is interspersed with his insightful lectures. What could have been a compendium of the leading edge of social science research is, instead, something much more ambitious. The Social Animal's reach exceeds its considerable grasp.

Everyone who has ever read a sociology or psychology text has weighed in on Mr. Brooks' use of the social sciences.

Before I get there, I have to say that this is a very well written, charming book to read. The device of using the personal stories is novelistic, and very compelling... Brooks makes you want to find out "what happened" to the lead characters. This is an impressive accomplishment.

The device of using modern social-psychology, modern neurology, to inform how life decisions are patterned, is very informative. Focus on one phrase: life decisions are patterned. This is the gist, the intellectual heft, of this book.

There are a range of metaphors. We are all caught in the web of intersecting life realities, and choice exists within that web... Biology, personality, social class, the issues and the problems, in the phraseology of John Dewey, form the basis for our life options. This ought not be offensive. It does not in any way diminish freedom of choice. These are the patterns within which we live, the ocean we swim in, the swim fins we wear...

One complaint is that Brooks never gets it exactly right, up to date on what the most recent research actually says. Humbug! Of course he does not get it exactly current. Write your own witty book that explains much of human nature, the social animal, and how these pattern us, and we shall see if every instance of a human being's life shows up accurately in your unreadable tome! This is witty, and tells much of how we work as people.

The book should be subtitled: "How to take the most compelling aspects of human behavior and reduce them to the most reductive, two-dimensional drivel possible." What more is there to say? One might add that of course these "deep insights" into our being are inevitably filtered through Brooks's inherently conservative viewpoint, but that is a secondary matter. In the end, the book is so terribly dispiriting because it manages to pound away at its material in the most superficial manner possible, on and on and on, until the desperate reader cries out for an antidote.

I truly enjoyed this book. I am in no way an expert in these areas. I also understand he is meshing two worlds together to illustrate something. I do think it is fascinating that our reviews that we write show just how subjective our experiences, and the stories we tell ourselves, influence our opinion of something. People attempt in their review to argue why it is a success or failure as a book, both point to the story or the science, and it leads them to give it 1 star or 5 stars.

Some give Brooks a hard time because he puts too much "God & Religion" into it. Or that it is a call back to social-conservative morals and society. But again, this illustrates they are seeing the things they disagree with and commenting on those, but missing that he also calls out the negative side of these very things also.

I walk away from this book seeing just how complex we are. To reduce us to mere machine following the electrical impulses of our brain is too shallow. And to reduce us to mere rational beings making distinct, free choices through out are day is just as simple. We are far more complex than this. And yet we still fall prey to reductionism.

When he writes about over-confidence and how we view ourselves, our knowledge, and our wisdom, I think he is spot on. Again, this reveals itself in the reviews people post. We act as experts, as if our review has more merit than others because we are more well-read. But a healthy dose of epistemological modesty is excellent to remember and keep in our mind as we continue.

Overall, I really enjoyed the book. As someone said, it is a great introductory book into the world. And, like the teacher that sparks Harold's learning process, this should lead us to then follow the rabbit trail and continue the study toward the articles, journals, and books of others in these fields.

When I was studying psychology I often thought that I got better insight into people's motivations or personality types through literature than I ever did through a psychology text. For example, the histrionic personality can only be described so far in clinical language: read a Tennessee Williams play and you'll fully understand. In some ways, "The Social Animal" tries to do the same thing-- convey rather complex research and information about the brain, human development, social behaviors, etc., through the weaving of a fictional story about "Harold" and "Erica." I think it's largely successful. It's a long read, though-- slower than most novels, but thankfully void of self-help "tips." I thought it was interesting, although not always compelling. I found myself skipping around in the text rather than reading it straight through.

I still don't know how I feel about Mr. Brooks, the man behind the in-your-face Republican Op-Ed column in the New York Times. Being a Democrat, I posses a skewed desire to identify and critique his attempts to use his column to push forth his own political agenda. Being a Democrat, I have an unconscious desire to associate myself with Democrats like Gail Collins and disassociate myself from Republicans like Mr. Brooks. Despite all of these unconscious prejudices, constant desires to shriek "Eureka - I have spotted his political agenda!," and affirm my own biases about Mr. Brooks, I cannot help but admit - no, proclaim:

This book is brilliant.

In a word, it is incredible. In another: Illuminating. Life-changing. Brooks combines the life-defining scientific findings of our era to craft the fictional, science-shaped tale of Harold and Erica from Harold's parents' first date to the end of Harold and Erica's lives. It's all relatable because it's all set in the present tense. Brooks' proves that he can jump from romance to parenting, elite to impoverished, classroom to living room, college to job hopping, work to worldview, leadership to persuasion, politics to people, and even (gulp!) Republicans to Democrats... without a flinch. The all-present construct is brilliant; the depth of exploration is unbiased and intriguing; the point - that we are social animals who must stop socialize to survive - life-changing. Brooks' book has taught me to appreciate the beauty of the unconscious.

Unlike Brooks' Op-Ed columns, The Social Animal doesn't have a political agenda - it just has a life agenda.

Bottom line? This is one of the best books that I have ever read. Five stars - and then some.

I enjoyed The Social Animal because it discussed the latest research in brain and emotions in the context of a story. I liked that.
I learned the importance of socialization and how powerful that is for your happiness-hence the title of the book. I learned about the importance of parents encouraging and making a big deal with each kid's accomplishments. I learned about life give and take through Harold and Erica's life with their growing up and marriage and later through their retirement. I believe its an important book. A must read for people wanting learn more about life and research to back up assumptions.
The only minor gripe is that I love books that tie things over at the end, sort of a summary. David Brooks have a epilogue but is more of why he wrote it rather then a summary , in other words, what does it all mean?
But overall is an excellent book and i highly recommend it.

David Brooks keeps getting better and this book was a real joy to read. Using a narrative to present a contemporary survey of thought regarding the nature of human psychology, happiness, sociality, political motivation, business life, love, child rearing, and so on, this book puts into practice the lessons it teaches. For those who have been trying to keep up with Damasio, Pinker, etc. this is a great way to see how they all are interrelated and because we remember stories best of all - voila - it is presented in story form and we even get to love the characters. This book reads fast, is interesting, easy to remember details, and very cheering. A great book to recommend to others! Perhaps it would even work well as a text in some college courses.
And an update - my book group finally agreed to do this book and our discussion is this Sunday! So yeah.

I have followed David Brooks, mostly through his columns and on the "News Hour." I have always been pleased by his solid reasoning and his ability to knit together factual fragments, place them in context and then provide balanced and solid commentary. Through an unusual structure, where he follows the lives of two fictional characters that are very recognizable as contemporary achievers he delves deeply and gently into how people think and develop from a subconscious base.

He pulls it off magnificently with humor and insight all supported by very creditable research. If you are a professional or maven of the neuroscientific realm, as many of the reviewers seem to be, one might carp (as they do) that the book does not posses the depth of a scientific text.

But they are not the folks he is writing for.

He is writing for people with a solid desire to broaden their perspective on how people tick.

I enjoyed reading this book, even though I wasn't entirely confident that I knew what it was supposed to accomplish.

"Rob", "Julia", "Erica" and "Harold" are fictional characters created to showcase a bewildering variety of research in fields of psychology, neuroscience, education, and so on. It is astonishing to me that David Brooks has read so widely and thoroughly in all of these fields. His attempt to synthesize these findings into a concerted storyline resulted in an unwieldy morass of information, but at least he identified his sources along the way, so his readers could check his references or read further on that subject. I found this book useful in locating other materials for further reading on the topics that particularly piqued my interest.

As other reviewers have noted, one puzzling feature of Brooks' fictional narrative is that he appears to have crammed the entire storyline, which spans ~100 years, all into our present day. He begins with the courtship of Harold's parents, and culminates with Harold's death as an elderly man, yet references to our present day culture, society and technology span the entire chronology. Brooks must have had some purpose in doing this, but I don't know what it might have been. I found it distracting, and also questionable, as I assume that cultural forces would surely have a significant impact on the ways Harold would differ from his parents in the fields of research referenced. I was hoping Brooks would address this concern in his Introduction or Acknowledgments, and defend this strategy, but he did not. If this book gets a second edition, I hope that issue will be addressed.

Brooks is a competent writer, and I found many passages informative and intriguing, certainly worthy of further investigation. Some parts were laugh-aloud funny, such as his evisceration of the wealthy and accomplished "perfect people" class, and titans of ego such as Donald Trump. Brooks' appreciation for a wide range of music, art and literature and their effects on us as human beings was also impressive.

Altogether, "The Social Animal" is a worthwhile read in spite of its flaws.

Oh my goodness.

Huh?

What was that?

Those responses are not the typical ones I have after completing a book, but they're the ones that have been circulating in my head after finishing (and trying to digest all that went on in) David Brooks' _The Social Animal_.

Starting out the book, I was pretty optimistic and hopeful. There were tons of copies in the New Book collection in the library (that's got to be a good sign, right?), the content seemed deliciously irresistible (who doesn't want to learn about "the hidden sources of love, character, and achievement"?), and the book jacket itself promised that "This is the happiest story you'll ever read" (sign me up!).

The first part of the book was pretty engaging. Admittedly, I'm a psychology junkie, so having chapters that rehashed what I've been reading about in recent books was pretty fun. This part of the book was kind of a trip down a summary lane, which had the cross streets of topics like: behavioral economics, choice architecture, attachment, limerence, learning, intelligence, memory, and culture. But, the more I read, the more I realized that this section was indeed just a rehashing. It was almost as if the author had spent years collecting interesting findings of psychology and sociology, and was using the first part of the book to catalogue them. There wasn't a whole lot of creativity and integration happening here despite the author's attempt to "integrate science and psychology with sociology, politics, cultural commentary, and the literature of success" (p. 377).

OK, I was a little disappointed at this point, but the principle of loss aversion (one of the many rehashed topics of this section) kept me going. I had already invested time (and hope) in this book, and I couldn't admit to defeat.

There was, after all, still the promise that this book was going to be the happiest story I'll ever read. Unhappily, this was probably the biggest (and most deluded?) over-promise I've ever read on a book jacket. Perhaps the author was referring to another book, or he neglected to read what he had written? The story of Erica and Harold (the main characters in the book) is anything but happy. Let me use the author's own words to demonstrate:
"They both had become profoundly sad. Erica would cry while blow-drying her hair. She wondered to herself if it would be worth trading her career success in exchange for happiness at home. Harold would sometimes see couples his own age
out for a walk, holding hands. That was unimaginable for him now. For Harold, as for Erica, the profoundest source of satisfaction was work, and it wasn't enough. Harold wasn't going to commit suicide, but if someone told him he had a fatal disease, he felt he could face the prospect with equanimity." (p. 266)

But, once I got passed the happiness-ever-after over-promise, I was kind of entertained by just how absurd these characters (or caricatures, as other reviewers have noted) were. I could cite countless examples (see other reviews), but the one that stands out is the couple's "decision" not to have children. Although Harold clearly and deeply wanted children, he only mentioned this one time to Erica whose response was "No, not now! Don't you ever burst in on me with that." And, the issue was never discussed again. This is the happiest story I'll ever read? (OK, maybe I never did get over that over-promise.)

So, now I was two-thirds through the book, and admitting defeat was not an option. I was going to get through this (social) animal, line by excruciating line.

The final part of the book seemed to be the author's attempt to congeal and share the political ideas that have been marinating in his mind over the past few decades. Admittedly, I am not familiar with the author's life's writings on politics, policy, society, and culture, but I'm guessing they're embodied in Harold's views and ramblings. I could not help but wonder if the author was reflecting on his own mission and experience when describing Harold's exhausting plight: "He spent those years writing essays, peppering the world with his policy proposals. Not many people seemed to agree with him...Still, he plugged away, feeling that he was mostly right about things and that someday others would reach the conclusions he had....He was confident that his 'socialist' approach, in one guise or another, would someday have a large impact on the world." (p. 335)

The ending of the book was the icing on the disappointment cake. It was convoluted, forced, and disillusioned. But, I suppose that complemented the flavors of the rest of the book. On the other hand, the ending was a happy one for me--I had finished this beast of a book! (I'm not quite sure if that is the happy ending the author had in mind.)

Would I recommend this book to someone who wants a satisfying, enlightening, creative, and well-written read? No.

Would I recommend this book to someone who wants a rehash, over-promise, self idea promotion, and absurd character development? Yes.

Oh my goodness.

Huh?

What was that?

These thoughts won't stop. It's time to return this book to the library.

David Brooks in The Social Animal provides the reader with a basic understanding of evolutionary psychology and its interpretation of how we develop character, are affected by our emotions, and how we interact with one another. Throughout the book, he applies insights from neuroscience to our (evolutionary) psychological tendencies. From my perspective, the book's most valuable chapters come near the end when Brooks applies what he has presented to moral development and ethical reasoning. There is a lot here to admire and a lot to trouble anyone interested in actual and prospective human behavior. Shifting from Freudian psychology to a Darwinian/evolutionary psychology will disturb me for days. Applying that thinking to the human condition and personal living is personally revolutionary. The world will change again as this perspective takes hold.

This is an excellent book but--since it is written by David Brooks--it is fairly dense and inaccessible. It sometimes takes multiple readings of the same passage to get everything that Mr. Brooks is trying to convey. Mr. Brooks is clearly a very thoughtful man and--unlike his peers at the NYT--is not an ideologue, so readers craving declarative sentences and an overriding thesis/es may be disappointed. All of that being said, I enjoy Mr. Brooks' work for all of those reasons and I enjoyed this book. Mr. Brooks' enthusiasm for learning new things always shines through so it is fun to go on the journey with him in these pages. I hope that this book will end up being studied in college courses because it brings up so many important and complex ideas. if you are a Brooks fan I highly recommend picking up this book.

The Social Animal is a carefully constructed look at the modern psyche. While it is replete with the most current scientific evidence, including comprehensive citations, it avoids being didactic by utilizing a setting following the lives of two fictional individuals. Through this vehicle, Brooks allows us to see how the human psyche develops, its reaction to fears, how education shapes it, and what ultimately motivates behavior. Although at times Brook's approach seems overly deterministic - as if nature and nurture have indelibly shaped and largely dictate the outcome of every person by the age of five - his skill at weaving the anthropological, psychological, and scientific data into this eminently readable work is noteworthy. It is a finely-crafted balance between scholarly research and a tale of two characters we all know.

The reading this book has strengthen a perception of mine that journalists have a problem when they try to write non-fiction books. The Social Animal has a noble goal but the delivery is painfully dragging its ideas through a long winding story of two people who live an unhappy life. This is already a contentious point. For reasons that are not clear to me, the book is meant to describe the life of two people "who lead wonderfully fulfilling lives". How can this be, when these two people live their lives absorbed in demanding jobs, with different ideals and that consider divorce at the age of fifty amidst desperation, bouts of alcoholism, a case of adultery, loneliness and realisation that they don't fit each other? It is only because of a moral inner struggle that they decide to stay together and keep going a childless family, giving you a strong impression that this is only because is too late and they have no other practical option.

The main idea of The Social Animal is to follow two threads that are intertwined throughout the book: a story of two people that met, fell in love and decided to live together and a scientific exploration of the current status of research in human development, society, social behaviour, psychology, mind, genetics, biology and professional development that explain the way we make decisions and behave. It is a great idea, but difficult to implement.

Overall, I found that reading was an uneven experience as if I was traveling across the country often by a boring bus and occasionally by an exciting Ferrari. I must say, that despite this review, I love David Brooks posts in The New York Times and I look forward to read his writing.

I am giving the book three stars, mainly because there is substantial effort behind its scientific part. The reader can use its rich bibliographical notes to further the research. The fiction side of the book has a less desirable quality; it is less engaging and it lacks fluency and literary attraction.

this books provides prototypes of two life courses. One which is mostly intellectual, the other one of social engagement. The social one is seen as having the most power and requiring the most social engagement. The intellectual one seems a protection against social engagement. Neither one leads to intellectual leadership or social leadership that survives the lives of the individuals. Both are searches for meaning in life. It is an unpleasant reminder that a life is worth what its owner feels it is worth.

This book covers SO MANY interesting ideas, and the story is so well-told that I found myself constantly forgetting that the factors at play in Harold and Erica's lives were actually based on lots of actual research. However, the fictionalized story-telling kind of takes away from the fact that so much of the analysis in the book is based on real-life studies and facts about how the human mind works, how society shapes people, and how people's lives can progress.

I did lose steam about halfway through the book and struggle to finish it up, though. I found it easy to follow along with the story-telling bits, but more of the non-fictional scientific explanations left me less engaged with the book.

In this book, David uses fictional characters as models for concepts of human experience, specifically successful adaption to the changing environment around each of us. While they have their ups and downs, Erica and Harold generally understand what they must do to adapt and succeed. Their experiences are sometimes typical, but eventually phase into realms that few of us are remotely close to encountering (e.g., working for a presidential candidate, then president). Erica is the more ambitious of the two, and also the minority member, while Harold is the white male contrast. Their characteristics are rather stereotyped, as others have noted, though David cites numerous sources along the way to support his characterizations and developments. Hence, the book's problems.

If a book is fiction, you don't need sources to explain your characters and developments. They (should) develop naturally from the direction you give the novel. Your story or message comes through on its own terms. If it's non-fiction (a term used loosely these days, granted), your assertions should be supported by consideration of sources and logical reasoning, not by simply grabbing at whatever source supports your statement. This book manages to fail in both areas.

I enjoy David's comments on PBS and understand he's a quality person. I can see he put in a lot of work on this book, but it just wasn't a good idea. A great many books these days aren't. The authors just can't walk away from them once they've put in a certain amount of work or time. The authors fall in love with them, or with a character or two, to the detriment of their readers.

A fascinating interweaving of factoids and fiction, this book works in psychological research studies into a fictional story. For those who have given negative critiques of this book because of the way it presents scientific research: this book is definitely not a psychology textbook nor would I use it to support my doctoral thesis. However what David Brooks sets out to do in such a unique way, he does wonderfully: he makes the reader think about how the unconscious, social aspects of ourselves, of which we are so often unaware, profoundly impact our every thought and action, and ultimately define who we are.

Unique, powerful, and enlightening.

David Brooks brings the reader on a journey featuring the underpinnings of human behavior through the adventures of Erica and Harold, as they pass through life from childhood to their marriage.

In describing the underlying causes of their behavior, driven mostly from the subconscious mind where it is formed by the dynamics of the culture they experienced from childhood, he enlightens the reader with a plethora of studies, helping you understand the reasons those behaviors are manifest; giving us some insight as to the sources of our own behaviors. "[T]he human mind can take in 11 million pieces of information at any given moment. The most generous estimate is that people can be consciously aware of forty of these. Some researchers have gone so far as to suggest that the unconscious mind does virtually all the work and the conscious will may be an illusion."

Despite the numerous studies he offers, David Brooks writes about behavior not from a mechanistic or clinical perspective, but with a deep reverence for our humanness; the invaluable education we receive through socialization and culture, and the devastating results when a culture deteriorates. "Humans succeed because they have the ability to develop advanced cultures. Culture is a collection of habits, practices, beliefs, arguments, and tensions that regulates and guides human life."

A part I found intriguing, is about our morality coming from deep within our unconscious mind, and a camera metaphor... "Joshua Greene of Harvard notes that his camera has automatic settings ("portrait," "action," "landscape"), which adjust the shutter speed and the focus. These automatic settings are fast and efficient. But they are not very flexible. So sometimes, Greene overrides the automatic settings by switching to manual--setting the shutter speed and focusing himself. The manual mode is slower, but allows him to do things he might not be able to achieve automatically. In the same way as the camera, Greene argues, the mind has automatic moral concerns. But in crucial moments, they can be overridden by the slower process of conscious reflection."

David Brooks has been interested in research about the mind and brain for decades, and his passion for that knowledge is palpable as evidenced from the mountainous information he discloses within these pages.

Joe Arrigo
Author of, The Secret Factor for Uncommon Sales Success

This is an extraordinary book of the rarest sort. At its core it is a book of philosophy founded on science, observation and introspection. David Brooks has long been known as a thoughtful conservative, but here it becomes clear that he's had a longstanding interest in neuroscience as well.

The characters of Harold and Erica are our guides through this book. They live their lives completely in our current time. They are young in the present day, their professional lives pass in the here-and-now, as do their final years. Through them, we see how the combination of innateness and influence can mold people to be who they are. Most importantly to Brooks, we see how the web of interaction with other people builds a life. The science is current: details will change, but Brooks is after the deeper truth. He sees the wellsprings of morality built deep inside of the mind--more the result of evolutionary process than imposed dogma. Decisions are often made before details have entered the conscious mind. Our mission is to combine those traits with reflection, so that we can approach some level of awareness. Unsurprisingly, Brooks spends some time with politics. It's hard to argue with his general conclusion that political affiliation has more to do with tribalism than it does with policy consideration. The sports equivalent would be "rooting for laundry".

There are a few mildly jarring references to figures in popular culture. My sense was that Brooks used these as an unnecessary effort to be plugged-in. I doubt that most readers will care about these figures, but the sin is minor. In the end, we see the necessity of reaching out--listening to the other person, expanding our web of associations in a world that makes it difficult. This is a book written by a thoughtful layman, reaching out to whomever might enjoy the conversation.

I have watched Brooks and Shields duke it out on the news hour for many years and was really interested in reading this book.

The format of the story is certainly a different one - the characters are born and live out their lives in the current day. Time does not pass in the sense that they don't live through the 70's and 80's - they are born today, grow up today, age and eventually pass on in today's time frame. That means that the technology and inventions that exist at the end of their lives already exist at the moment that they are born. I have yet to see another book use this technique and found it remarkably freeing in allowing the reader to focus on the character and on how people at different stages of their lives are affected by the world we live in now.

Brooks is very adept with the written word and there are passages in the book that had me laughing out loud. He manages to put his finger right on the pulse of the superficiality and ludicriousness of social behavior. The very irreverent first chapter in itself made the book a winner for me.

The premise of the book seems to be that social interactions, skills and inuitive social ability, rather than Intelligence ,are the defining traits that determine whether one can be a success in society or not. I have to admit that I found this a daunting supposition and not one that I can totally agree with. I suppose it all comes down to one's definition of what being a success actually means.

I did feel that the author was quite detached in his presentation of the two characters around whom the book revolves. They seemed a bit wooden at times but as a reflection for the author's views on society today they were perfectly sufficient.

All in all, an interesting read and an elightening one.

In his new book David Brooks illustrates the social sciences through the lives of two fictional characters, Harold and Erica, who grow up, fall in love and build a life together. It's not a novel and it's not a textbook in the traditional sense. I expected the fictional storyline to get in the way of the book I really wanted to read but I was surprise by how much I enjoyed that particular plot device.

The greatest point I took away from the The Social Animal is probably how irrational we often are as humans. Entire industries are built around the notion of humans acting rational most of the time and it simply isn't true. That same irrationality is also what gives our lives that unique flavor of unpredictability.

I really enjoyed this unique book. David Brooks is probably too conservative for my taste in general, but I found no evidence of that while reading this book. Brooks crafts a story around a four people, essentially, and interjects current research related to their choices, failures, and successes. I found myself actually caring about the characters as I might in a novel. At one point, I shed some tears.

Excellent book on behavioral economics and the role of unconscious and conscious in human development. Brooks uses a fascinating perspective, following the birth and growth of two hypothetical people who eventually meet and fall in love. Tons of relevant research is cited to back up the claims. And his writing style is clean, smooth, and easy to read...even in the face of some complex topics.

After appreciating Brooks's "The Road to Character" I checked out its predecessor, "The Social Animal". The thin novel that drives the narrative is a vehicle for his perspective on nature vs. nurture, cultural influences on people, social interactions, and whether your family makes much difference. Topics that may never be settled, for certain. Mr. Brooks tries to give social science backing for his thesis, and partially succeeds, whereas much of the argument may be his gut feel and education by experience. That may not sound like a ringing endorsement, but I found his pitch effective and his unusual approach of a story told in the perpetual present interesting. Perhaps I was fertile ground planted with similar seeds.

When Mr. Brooks moved more into the political sphere, as when one of the characters implausibly gets involved at the highest levels, the theme and story wavered. His key theme about the primacy of social interactions remained.

First, let me agree with several other reviewers who find David Brooks likable and sensible. He's a bit of a Renaissance man, possessing many skills, interests, and a good mind. And I really enjoyed the first third of this book, because Brooks weaves a story of several fictional characters and interjects bursts of heftier, thought-provoking findings from studies/statistics that help explain their behavior. This was a fun and clever approach. When the studies and theories began to dominate the narrative, the buggy got bogged down. It wasn't until much later in the book that I realized part of the reason. The author presented us with a maze of possibilities, and all of the hedges were the same height. Each study and statistic he reported appeared to be given the same weight. It was a good try, but the mass of data points made the effort fuzzier, not clearer. There were too many explanations and no analysis of the QUALITY of the research being used. When he began to say things like: "In the intuitionist view, the unconscious soulsphere is a coliseum of impulses vying for supremacy" (p. 287), I think I shrieked.

This book gives a good modern overview of social criteria along the life. I really recommend to read the book up to "Getting older". Morality looks very speculative and the rest of the book feels boring except discussion on political preferences.

I saw some people referenced to Aronson book with the same title. Aronson book is very different and mostly devoted to social science experiments design to prove research topics. The list of covered topics is very questionable to reflect reality and mostly correspond to what social science tries to prove for the sake of politicians.

I stumbled upon this book and bought it on a whim. I've only read it once, but I didn't really like it. Expecting something in the style of a Malcom Gladwell or Freakonomics type of book, I felt that the imaginary characters Brooks created hindered his message. The book is full of interesting neurological facts, but it gets drowned out by the made-up details of Harold and Erica, the two people who are the vehicles for Brooks' statement.
And what is his statement? I walked away from this book feeling like it hadn't really made an impression. By following the characters from before birth to retirement was no easy task for a relatively short book. I felt there wasn't really one connecting thread throughout that wove it all together for me. It seemed like most of the book was just throwing information at the reader without much context.
However, despite these flaws, it was a pretty good book. It reads pretty fast and easily, and does contain a lot of information. I have a feeling this book will be more enjoyable on its second read. It really deserves 3.5 stars out of 5, but I rounded up to 4.

It was an interesting read on Social Psychology and other topics. David Brooks, the author and NY times columnist, tells a story of a hypothetical couple from before they are born until their death all the while giving color commentary from all the latest science research relevant to each chapter of their lives. Some of it is covering topics and other books I have read such as the references to the Harlem Children's Zone, Malcolm Gladwell's books, Self Help Books, etc. If you have interests in psychology or the way the brain works or consciousness you might enjoy this book.

The book simply put is good. A true 3 out of 5. I have a hard time because the book structurally cannot be any different than what is. When songwriters write music sometimes they put lyrics to the music already written. Sometimes the write the music for the lyrics. In this book the reader is caught in a weird balancing act as if the narrative takes you down a psychology hallway and opens a door for each chapter just to peak in and then continues to walk the reader down the hallway. The story line tries to fit everything in and while not bad it just doesn't satisfy. The story is spun well enough not to be clinical and the ideas that are presented through the characters in the story lack in detail or explanation. This book in fact has spawned an interest to read other works that are referenced. If you can find an extra copy or good price read it, but I would not go out of my way. The book needs to be another 4-500 pages in length to fully engage the ideas the reader peaks at.

The Social Animal is an amazing text. It is better than The Tipping Point, but similar to it. It is more comprehensive in its approach, and simply discusses the human condition intelligently. It focuses on our most common and important contexts. If you can ignore the opinions that you disagree with and take the questionable stuff with a grain of salt, this can be a useful book to you. If the roads of life need left boundaries and right boundaries, this book offers guidance and one of those boundaries on the roads of education, work, marriage, and child rearing.

In The Social Animal, Author David Brooks summarized what seems like thousands of studies of human behavior - why we are the way we are. To illustrate how some of these theories work, he created a family: mom, dad, kid and eventually kid's wife. So, it is not only a summary of fascinating research but the story is very compelling and at times I even laughed out loud. In a couple of parts I didn't want to put the book down. Oh, and when I got to the part about the married couple aging - it really hit home, my husband and I have been married for 46 years. As I read I thought - so that's why we think that way or react in such a way. Highly recommend for any adult or adolescent at any stage in life to help understand why we and others behave the way we do.

Truly insightful and well-researched in the realm of social science, soft subject that it is. Brooks melds the dry experimental conclusions with a clever narrative most folks can relate to, though sometimes corny and trite. Book is a bit long and soporific, but a very important read that can help you see why some folks behave the way they do and great commentary on the direction our culture is headed.

This book touches on various aspects of our lives, and since I'm not a psychology or sociology expert, I can say this book is very well written for the layman. From my perspective, this book ranks right there with Blink (Gladwell), etc. I would recommend it to anyone who thinks about the present state of society, human behavior, and how we can be a part of making things better.

I thought this would be a very interesting book (particularly after watching some of Charlie Rose's "Brain Series"). So I was pretty disappointed.
I don't think I could even get beyond the fact that I was going to have to see the "emotional workings" of life through 2 people. Why only 2? Is it because they are prototypical successful people? The type of people we should aspire to? Ivy League educated. Blah, blah, blah. They were amazingly boring characters.
Yes, I know that David Brooks is conservative, and I'm not. But I generally don't have a problem with his views as they tend to be fairly moderate.
There is no way I wanted to go beyond the courtship of these 2 characters.

This is the best book I have read in years. Hands down, no competition, no doubt - you owe it to yourself to read this excellent work.

I wish I had the intellectual scope to write books like this. In this genre buster David Brooks both entertains and informs in equally high measure as he looks into the nature of success - with particular emphasis on the unseen role of the unconscious mind.

He starts by building an absolutely compelling story of the lives of two characters, Harold & Erica, following them throughout their entire lives and observing everything they do to achieve ultimate success. This account of his incredibly well-drawn characters begins before either of them were born. He tracks them from birth through their lives to the point at which they meet, and then beyond as they become a couple and pursue success in the world. As he tells this engaging story with his equally engaging characters, he weaves in a review of everything that has been discovered in the last several years on the role that our unconscious minds play in everything we are and everything we do: explaining it all through the lives of his characters. All of the most important developments in neuroscience are explored and explained in a way that is incredibly accessible - and yet none of this research is in the least 'dumbed down'. He tracks Harold and Erica's emotions, the development of their characters, how they think - every aspect of who they are. Thoroughly riveting.

I love science and research - but this is not a science and research book. I love a good story - but this is not a classic novel either. What Brooks has created is something entirely new - and fascinating.

First I read it - now I'm listening to it. And it's a tribute to the richness of Brooks writing that even the second run through the content reveals an enormous amount of fascinating material I missed first time around.

And he does all this with pithy one-liners, occasional and wonderfully shocking yet indispensible expletives, and the comic timing of Lennie Bruce.

I heartily recommend it to you. You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll learn.

I watched a television interview with David Brooks about this book. He described the fictionalized backdrop of this book as allegory. I agree, certainly, with that assessment. With his skillful turn of phrase, Brooks has written a compelling book which drew me in like the most compelling fiction. This book, I believe, will help me live a more successful life, as Brooks is able to explore the roots of WHY we do what we do. It is fascinating, fun to read and rings true on every level.

Fortunately, I was invited to be part of the the store Vine program. This is a wonderful blessings as the website provides a list each month of materials to review. Luckily, I saw this title in the newsletter, because I was hoping to read it anyway. The book is a wonderfully written journey about two people. Harold and Erica start from youth in the title, and you watch them grow old together. It touches on a ton of social issues, and most of these are highly insightful and interesting. Sometimes you feel that the construct of these characters interferes with the information, but on the other hand, you are reading good fiction that illustrates the social issues that the author is detailing. It is a journey into the social networks of humanity. Sometimes these types of works are a repeat of previous books, but in this work it is not the case. There was a ton of new insights into the functioning of humanity within culture. It was a emotional analysis of the human mind. Mostly a good book for me is one that is well written, which is the case, and one that is insightful, which is the case. This book provides both. There are some sections that are absolutely wonderful, as some chapters are worth the price of the book. You read this book learning about the two characters but by the end of it you have learned about yourself.

"But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?'" -- Romans 9:20 (NKJV)

David Brooks' thesis is that our interactions with others, beginning with our parents, shape us in many ways that we fail to notice . . . even while the powerful influences occur. The book briefly cites many dozens of studies to help establish that point.

A straight recitation of the studies, arranged by topic, would make for pretty dull reading. To offset that problem, Mr. Brooks creates two fictional lives to make the information less abstract and more interesting. Harold comes from a socially enriched family background while his wife, Erica, experiences less family support as a child.

In the parts of the book where the fictional story balances the scientific studies, this storytelling method works pretty well. Toward the end of the book, the fiction is overwhelmed by the science and you may feel as if you are getting more information than you wanted in some cases.

If you regularly read about scientific studies in these fields, this book may seem very superficial to you. If you read very little on these topics, you'll probably welcome the way that Mr. Brooks has made a lot of information more readily available to you in easy-to-absorb form.

Here are the chapter topics and the fictional contexts:

1. Decision Making (how Harold's parents fell in love)
2. The Map Meld (how married couples put their lives together)
3. Mindsight (interaction of baby Harold with his parents)
4. Mapmaking (young Harold's mind and perceptions expand)
5. Attachment (young Harold's emotional connection to his parents)
6. Learning (student Harold becomes engaged in subjects that inspire him)
7. Norms (student Erica seeks access to a better education)
8. Self-Control (in a special school Erica gets her impulses under control)
9. Culture (in college Erica learns the value of trust in making a community effective)
10. Intelligence (at work Erica learns that IQ isn't enough for success)
11. Choice Architecture (Erica starts a consulting firm to look at behavioral economic characteristics of customers)
12. Freedom and Commitment (Harold looks for a more appropriate line of work and Erica looks for a consulting partner)
13. Limerance (Harold and Erica come into work and relationship harmony)
14. The Grand Narrative (Erica goes to work for a company with a self-absorbed leader making bad mistakes)
15. Métis (Harold shares insights from the British Enlightenment with Erica)
16. The Insurgency (Erica teams with a coworker to create solutions for their company)
17. Getting Older (Erica and Harold grow apart as their interests diverge)
18. Morality (Erica is tempted, falls, and picks herself up again)
19. The Leader (Erica supports a charismatic political leader)
20. The Soft Side (Harold joins a think tank and looks into strengthening social connections)
21. The Other Education (Erica develops new interests, and Harold discovers a new avocation)
22. Meaning (Harold takes stock of his life)

The Social Animal examines issues that affect our behavior, choices, level of success, relationships, perspectives, attitudes, etc., in a manner that science and society rarely do. It encourages the reader to consider the lesser-esteemed, difficult-to-quantify forces driving human nature and shaping us as individuals in a society. If something can't be measured, tested for, validated, or explained in terms we understand, does it matter? Does it exist? I think so. Joseph Campbell made an analogous observation about the limitations of mankind's view of God: "It may be a species of impudence to think that the way you understand God is the way God is." For some to whom eminent logic is king and reason always trumps passion and intuition, the message of this book may be discounted or missed entirely. Personally, I think Brooks did an admirable job of exploring and affirming the less tangible variables in the human equation - those that can be felt but not witnessed and often seem at odds with reason but have a profound impact on who we are, what we do, and the societies we collectively build.

The author takes us on a trip through the lives of two fictional characters, Harold and Erica, who meet when young, marry and live long and fulfilling lives. At each phase in their lives, after describing the period they have gone through, the author backs away and gives an extensive meditation on what he has described in a more general context, citing aspects of psychology, sociology, philosophy, etc. to display the "enchantment" of life that comes to us from beneath the surface flow. The book really is a bit short for this level of examination of life, and I found the ideas, as a result, come through a bit superficially. On the other hand, the author did convince me of the importance of unconscious processes in understanding happiness and fulfillment. The fact that Harold and Erica ultimately learn to love one another deeply, despite not having children, seems in the end to emphasize the centrality of "success" as a term that transcends the Darwinian notion of counting the number of offspring. The emphasis is on happiness of individuals as an ephemeral phenomenon, whatever the ultimate fate of the human race, or the fact that all lives are finite.

I read this book at a unique time in my life. I am 65 and my 95-year-old mother died last month. In the maelstrom of mixed emotions that followed i found myself unexpectedly freed of a hesitancy and procrastination about my life i hadn't realized was there. Even though Brooks has to use the tools of consciousness and rationality to communicate I recognized the same freedom in myself that he attempts to describe. Couldn't tell you what words made this connection for me, it was entirely feeling. So i think he did it, he succeeded. (i took off a star for the rick perry comments in his NYT column that also prove the authenticity of The Social Animal - there were no special powers involved.)

I truly enjoyed this book, I learned, but in a very intriguing and entertaining way. The fictional characters kept me interested; the presentation of such fascinating studies amazed and amused me. My favorite: the marshmallow study. " The marshmallow test turned out to be a better predictor than SAT scores than the IQ tests given to 4 year olds."

Brooks tries, he really does. I suppose he should be commended on giving his "all." But the prose is awful, and the structure is painfully obvious. I realize he didn't want to try another "pop-psychology" book. And he didn't, but that's not necessarily a good thing. Instead, he wrote some kind of bastard crap-fiction/neuroscience nonsense. Two stars for effort.

Brooks prefaces this excursion into the social sciences with the reassurance that "[t]his is the happiest story you've ever read." Hardly. This is an ordinary story often interrupted, more so in the beginning, less so in the middle, and susceptible to detours near the end. Early on, the story takes a backseat to what feels like voluminous social research related to courtship and the bonds between parent and child. Towards the middle, the social research and story advance side by side--making Brooks' primary point more clear: the world, and those who are in it, are largely deaf to the influences that make it whole. Fortunately, the story's main characters are not, and as the story reaches its climax, the action of their lives is supplanted by isolated contemplation. A contemplation that is essentially a diversion from both the story and the research as Brooks lays out a policy prescription for our most prevalent social ills. The prescription (which as envisioned by his protagonist is remarkably similar to that shared by a certain New York Times columnist) is sure to ruffle a few feathers--on both the left and the right.

All of this is fine because, despite the reassurances, the narrative is deliberately subservient to Brooks' main objective: to show that non-cognitive influences are much more determinative of our life course than we realize. These non-cognitive influences, which unknowingly battle with our cognitive selves, come in many forms. And Brooks uses his story to unpack a plethora of scientific research to uncover not only the influences, but also to explain how the battle can shape our lives. Largely absent in this battle, however, are any religious influences. Also missing are the powerful impacts individual relationships can have in shaping our lives, the two main characters essentially live separate lives.

To this reader, the absence of these influences makes the story feel a bit artificial, and throughout, Brooks tends to overplay his hand. True, no one knows from where the prevailing winds blow in our lives (Brooks colorfully refers to this mysterious source as "the Big Shaggy"), but the decisions we make in harnessing them largely determine our course.

But while this reader wasn't persuaded, any other reader might be, and many more are likely to find more than a few morsels to satisfy them. This is because you don't read this book to be persuaded. Neither do you read it to be entertained. You read it to indulge yourself in the cornucopia of ideas Brooks lays out before you. If you do so, you likely won't be disappointed.

This book is a "good read", a page-turner untypical of it's peers but it's also a book of great importance. While researching my own book on the gulf oil spill I was continually pulled toward the people (rather than the technology) wound up in the event. What I found was a community of people who where very different in education and socioeconomic status and faced social and community challenges in addition to those thrown at them by engineers and nature.

The layer of networks found in David's book where very similar in nature to the networks I found on oil rigs with distinct groups of people (educated engineers, businessmen, rig workers, mariners, etc) relate to each other - how the interconnections of these PEOPLE (not the technology or nature) failed the world.

It's not until we understand the immeasurable connection between people, the social networks of life itself, that we can understand and prevent (!) the world's most troubling disasters. That is why this book is a must read for all involved with complicated challenges. -John Konrad, Author of Fire on the Horizon: The Untold Story of the Gulf Oil Disaster

By the time I was done reading, I hardly knew exactly what to take away...the whole story was inconclusive, with few concrete lessons to take away and just a bunch of scientific pop trivia. Not to mention, the characters were flat, and neither seemed very happy or "successful" by the end of the book. But it definitely piqued my interest in psychology!

This book offers a very readable look at what makes humans tick. It does so by weaving the life stories of fictitious characters Harold and Erica, who fall in love and marry, together with a barrage of comments about what is supposedly happening inside their brains as things happen in their lives. Brooks makes many references to studies and experiments in evolutionary psychology, sociology, neurology, and other disciplines.

For me, here's how it came out.

PROs:

- There were a lot of interesting factoids, findings of experiments and studies. My copy of the book has marks all over where I found something interesting.
- The way he used Harold and Erica as a vehicle for presenting the wealth of factoids, as opposed to just talking abstractly about the research, worked well to make the info understandable and lively.
- Toward the end he presents some interesting ideas about what is not working in our society. I don't know how original these ideas are, but they were interesting.

CONs:

- With one tiny exception, the characters don't speak -- Brooks just tells us what they are thinking and feeling. As a result, the characters seemed less real; I didn't much care what happened to them.
- Brooks lets it all hang out with his sense of humor, and at times it felt a little corny to me. He likes to exaggerate wildly for comic effect, and while it did make the book a lighter read, it was perhaps a little over the top.
- On several occasions I was left with the impression that some research Brooks cited was flawed, or that the results were ambiguous. It is likely that the research is more valid than it sounded, that Brooks simply didn't give enough details to make that clear.

One of Brooks's main points in the book is that we tend to think that rational thought is what makes people successful in life, but in fact that is far less important than what is going on in the unconscious mind. While he isn't the first to point this out by any means (he refers to Jonas Lehrer, for example, in a couple of places), he makes this case well. However, here again I thought he went a bit overboard, saying that having an IQ over 120 only matters to your success if you're a mathematician. A great many engineers, scientists, and educators would disagree, I'm sure. Either he was using mathematicians as a metaphor for a far larger body of people (which would to some extent invalidate his point), or the comment relies on a very limited measure of success, like money.

But in spite of its flaws, I really did enjoy reading the book, and will probably flip through it again in the future to look back at the many things I highlighted. It's an interesting, readable book.

I appreciate what the author was trying to accomplish, but it fell flat with me. It was incredibly dry and text book-like. I found it to be all over the place explaining all of the different psycho-theories that take place in the span of one's life. A lot of this is pop psychology and I would honestly just prefer to read the articles myself than have them summarized in a pseudo-story. For the first time in life I will not be finishing a book. I read 2/3 of it for my book club and planned to finish it, but I have absolutely no desire to pick it up again.

This is for sure one of the most interesting books I ever read, and I read a lot. David Brooks writes about a number of life-related subjects by merging an engaging story with explanations using neuroscience and psychology. He makes his points brilliantly, and managed to keep my interest high nearly the whole time.
I learned a great deal and was inspired, moved, challenged and amazed.

I obtained this book with a great deal of expectation, having watched an interview of the (well known) author by Charlie Rose. The subject, neuroscience (broadly speaking), has been prominent lately, particularly in the light of functional brain imaging.

Based on the bibliography the book appears well researched, although I am in no position to judge the depth the author has reached and the validity of the impressions arrived at. The subject is not entirely apolitical and Mr. Brooks has his own political views. To what extent his biases have influenced the choice of references is not possible for me to fathom.

The narrative style is unique. There is an imaginary family moving through the current environment and interspersed with their life experiences are analytical tid-bits, apparently based on current 'scientific' thinking. The narrative is uniquely American (knowledge of current American cliches and social life helpful, but not absolutely necessary) and takes the form of a Television program with intermittent commercials (you decide which the narrative is and which the commercial). The story narrated is rather crude and robotic and, if I may use the most abused cliche, incredible.

I found the book tedious, boring, verbose and shallow. There is a lot of information touched upon but poorly analyzed. If you like TV 'Informacials' this book may be for you. By the way, it's a great book to practice 'speed-reading', just skip the commercials!

I haven't finished the book yet, and I intend to continue reading. However, by choosing a supposedly made up name of a "heroic" figure to be John Koch Mr. Brooks SERIOUSLY damages the remaining small level of credibility I was hoping he would bolster as I continue. Thanks for making it all so obvious. I read the recent parts thinking, "okay, i can see how this is shaking out, but it has contained some interesting conjecture, so I'll keep on reading with an open mind...." Yeah, that has been cleared up for me. You, Mr. Brooks are out of the closet... consistent with the garbage I have listened to you speak aloud.

Also, i notice that while invoking many other authors' works (at least in the Kindle edition) there seem to be no footnotes... this is congruent with other right wing propaganda books I have either attempted to force myself to endure or have endured.

Unless you already are brainwashed into right wing ideology, or have a decent b.s. meter, I wouldn't recommend this book. And, I suppose this is exactly the audience this author would expect.

From the story and the science David Brooks weaves together a thoughtful book. Like staring at the ocean you get calm storytelling and then the waves of science that slap you into deep thoughts about how we view ourselves and the people around us. I think that the balance between the story and the science is excellent. I would say that this approach is much better than a self-help book although that is not its purpose. It looks at the many motives we have and how we can look beyond the choices we are making now.

I am familiar with David Brooks as a commentator and was anxious to read his thoughts in long form. I appreciated the clever asides. I appreciated the astout observation. The notes were delightfully extensive. The book announced itself as being a happy story - I missed that "happy story" amidst the work-a-holic frenzy, the alcoholism, adultery and general lack of altruism. The device of using fictional characters in a non-fiction work didn't move me. I've felt far more attached to fictional characters than these who seemed so nebulous.

In the Acknowledgments section of The Social Animal, David Brooks says that this book is an attempt to "integrate science & psychology with sociology, politics, cultural commentary, and the literature of success". He could have added "and philosophy, anthropology, poetry, and everything else I've read over my lifetime." Brooks says he has been interested in research about the mind and the brain ever since college, which is clear, but it also seems that there are few subjects in which he is NOT interested. It is rare to pick up a book with so many references cited from so many different fields. The result is a fascinating distillation of everything we know about being human. When it works, this book is a delight. When it doesn't work, it isn't too bad. Overall it is worth your time.
Brooks' book is structured around the lives of a married couple, Harold & Erica, from birth to the end of their lives. At appropriate points in the lives of each, Brooks digresses to discuss the factors that affect them, internally and externally, from their neurons to their culture. His special foci are 1) the unconscious mind & how it interacts with the conscious mind, and 2) man's nature as a social creature. He draws on work from experts such as computer scientist Douglas Hofstadter, neurologist Antonio Damasio, Nobel-prize-winner for economics Daniel Kahneman, evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller, novelist Frank Portman, journalist Walter Lippman, psychiatrist Victor Frankl, philosopher Alva Noe, Christopher Hitchens, Steven Pinker, Thomas Sowell, and many, many others, in many instances summing up major research in just one or two sentences. This could be frustrating if your interest is piqued, but the copious notes give plenty of citations where you can follow up. You are unlikely to learn anything new about subjects in which you already have read a bit, but it is highly unlikely that you have read in ALL the fields Brooks covers. For myself, for example, I knew about mirror neurons but not dandelion and orchid children, and I picked up two handy new words: limerence and metis.
There are both advantages and disadvantages to the fact that Brooks himself is not an expert in the fields he is discussing. On the one hand, he shows admirable restraint in discussing the amygdala, cerebrum, and other technical matters that can often overwhelm books by the experts. On the other, I REALLY do not need to be told that 10 to the 81st power is 1 with 81 zeros after it.
The use of Erica's and Harold's lives is a nice one but not totally successful. Erica had a fairly consistent, believable personality, but Harold never really came together as a coherent person. I felt that sometimes Brooks wanted to make a point, and so he had Harold display a certain trait or have an experience that he could use as a take-off for his discussion. In his narrative Brooks from time to time tried to be too arch or clever, and the tone just didn't fit with the rest of the book. On the other hand, The Social Animal made me personalize the information and compare it to my own life more often than I might have expected, and this may have been facilitated by the examples of Erica and Harold.
For the most part Brooks was, as he said, integrating the work of others rather than putting forth his own views. Certainly he chose which sources to cite, but in fields I know anything about, the authorities cited are mainstream and respected. In his own field Brooks is one of those conservatives whom even liberals respect for his fairness, and so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for objectivity. However, as a political commentator himself, Brooks could not resist making his couple politically active, and he had them involved in politics. In this section, there are a number of citations of a writer named David Brooks. Nobody's perfect.
The book isn't perfect, either, but if you only read one book this year in the general area of current thinking on human nature, this would not be a bad choice.

Wonderful book, and much needed in today's age. Some of the biggest problems with "helicoptor parents" is the fact that many do not allow the child t fail, which is one of the most important ways for children's brains to form and learn. Parents please read this!

In one of my past lives as a Mathematician, we called what David Brooks is doing here "sub-optimization through numerical techniques." This was a situation that typically arose when generalized mathematical theories became so difficult as to be almost intractable. In such instances one would resort to the most inelegant (and almost embarrassing) process of "quick-and-dirty approximations." Usually this was done through the use of power series expansions (in the case of the integral calculus for instance) or even through computer simulation using statistical (Monte Carlo) methods, etc. in the case of more closed-form mathematical theories and formulas. The general idea was not to allow generalized theories or closed-form solutions to ever defeat you, or ever allow them to get in the way of finding workable solutions. In short, quick and dirty approximations were a last resort "workaround."

Although I cannot be entirely sure (because even though Brooks is both a good thinker and writer, there is a lot of muddled fiddling going on here), I think that this is what Brooks is doing in this book. And I will tell you why I think this.

First, I have read enough across several interdisciplinary areas to know that it is a fact that research in the neuro-Sciences and Physiology is finally closing in on, if not catching up with the grand theories in Psychology and Social-Psychology -- some of which (like Freud's) have been lying around for at least a generation now. However, instead of "panning for gold" in the fertile hills of these existing grand theories (as say the legion of post-Freudians like Otto Rank, Ernest Becker, Norman O. Brown, or even the old "standby, Eric Fromm, have done in Psychology; or Robert Wright or Eliot Aronson have done in Social-Psychology), Brooks and other Glawellians prefer to "pan" in the not so rich but infertile sub-optimal hills of the obscure professional journals, where even though the chances of finding big nuggets is often questionable and greatly reduced, one can have so much more fun panning?

And here it is panning that the author has done -- sometimes (but not always) with good effect. The tip-off that he was panning in the infertile and sub-optimal hills was when I noticed in his endnotes that none of the post-Freudians or mainstream Social-Psychologists were mentioned, but his old ideological "cut-Buddy," Thomas Sowell, was?

Instead of following normal research protocol and orthodoxy, Brooks preferred to work on the outside, on the obscure margins, using Sowell's approach to culture through economics; and what is now easily recognized as the Gladwellian technique to human behavior.

Brooks invented his own mini-theory and created his own "virtual reality" database, people, culture and all -- populating it through his own self-devised "Virtual Sociology." In Brooks' own inelegant approximation to human behavior he had complete control over his invention: the "virtual" people, and their "virtual" culture: Harold and Erica. And of course he was able to follow their "virtual lives" from birth to death, because he was the God who invented them?

So what conclusions are we to draw from all of this modern speculative machinery that is a "workaround" to normal theoretical orthodoxy, and which like magic is turned back in on itself into "live" pseudo-scientific findings?

In my view, we cannot draw many conclusions at all. To me, it is all just short of being a tautologically closed system? [I was not even seduced by the oblique attack on IQ tests and the knocking down of other neo-racists ideas (although I cannot say I was not tempted (Ha!)). Not because I did not believe there is some truth in his findings, but because I simply did not believe in the integrity of Brook's approach.]

As was the case in "Bobos in Paradise," Brooks just does not seem to want to trust the orthodoxy of grand theorizing, no matter how good or battle-tested they may be.

Sometimes one lives by Malcolm Gladwell and Thomas Sowell, and at other times he dies. I think Brooks, (who I admire very much and save all of his op-ed pieces in a separate computer file (along with Chris Hedges and Maureen Dowd)), this time dies. Three Stars

What an amazing read! David Brooks beautifully shared insights across so many spheres of life but he did so through such an engaging storytelling style that he had me hooked to the very end! Loved it!

The best time to read this book can't be before the age of 40. To truly understand the human behavior concepts threaded throughout the lives of the two people who provide the frames for book's research one must have experienced a decent chunk of life. While this provided insight if consumed slowly, some of the stories felt forced, as if Brooks couldn't bear to scrap some of the research he acquired in planning the book.

This reads like a cross between an opinion piece and a term paper. It summarizes work in sociology, psychology, and neuroscience, but adds nothing new or insightful. His applications are not driven by the science, but shoe-horned into his ideology. If the topic interests you, read the sources, Haidt, (The happiness hypothesis is excellent), Kahneman, and any of a dozen modern neuroscientists. Brooks is not a bad writer, but he is not a scientist and he has just become too much of an ideologue.

The novelized portion of this book is set in a perpetual 2011, so that the childhoods, adolescence, and twilight years of his model characters alike take place in the same "present." This illusion is fruitful for his argument because it lets Brooks
overlook an obvious weakness of his claim for emotionally-compelled morality: any moment in history has its own emotional "morality." If social-trained emotion is a better guide to life than individual, pragmatic reason, as Brooks argues, then one should, according to this logic, trust the emotionally-fired "logic" of one's own social moment.
This is precisely the target of Twain's satire in _Huck Finn_. The allegedly virtuous middle class in that novel is eyeball deep in emotional religiosity; sentimental, morbid art; and codes of "honor," all of which facilitate not an enlightened democracy, but a gullible, violence-loving body politic serving a slave economy. According to Brooks' logic, Huck would trust his alcoholic, brutal father, follow the literary compulsions of his aristocratic-fantasy-reading friend Tom Sawyer, and treat his best friend, the slave Jim, not as a good man, but as someone else's farm equipment. All of these compliant actions are in tune with the emotionally compelling, social morality of the novel's (1844) moment. With Twain's lesson in mind, one should be able to note all sorts of follies, if not pernicious delusions, even from the twentieth century, that are part of the socially-imagined morality of any moment. Brooks seems to believe that any man is hardwired (as he apparently sees himself ) to have a primate morality that makes him want Donna Reed for a spouse and to be a nice, enlightened Eisenhower-endorsing preppy--as if by nature. Would that history were so simple.
But would America itself have been founded without creative, individualistic reason--a reason that challenges and improves on the social conditions one is born to?

There is a narrative structure that uses two fictional characters to weave as much meaningful contemporary research as possible into the book. The narrative side may cause the reader to reflect on his own mortality while the research discussed seems to invigorate the reader with the thrill of new understanding. I think Malcolm Gladwell is envious of this exceptional work.

This book gave me a new way of looking at learning and how our minds work. Cleverly related by bouncing back and forth between psychological studies and the lives of our two protagonists. I would have rated it higher but for getting a little bogged down about two thirds of the way through. Makes you think about the meaning of life, if there is one.

The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement
David Brooks
Random House, New York
2011

Most of us are familiar with David Books as a regular Friday night commentator on The News Hour, where he and Mark Shields politely discuss that week's major events, Brooks taking a conservative perspective and Shields a liberal one. And, of course, in his regular columns in the New York Times and on NPR, he elaborates on these views.

Like other conservatives, Brooks typically leans toward an economic and political interpretation. But what happens when someone from this stance discovers psychology, not ideology-based psychology but evidence-based psychology derived from actual research by psychologists and psychologically minded people in, say, economics, communications, human relations, aging, and related fields? Social Animal gives its readers one man's answer to this question.

Brook's main point is that the theory of Rational Man is basically flawed. The assumptions of this theory --to exaggerate a bit but not too much--suppose that people's decisions are always fully rational, that decisions are based on looking at the evidence, weighing options, and maximizing results while minimizing risks. This theory in one guise or another is a fundamental precept of conservative thought particularly in economics, but Brooks points to the Iraq War and current recession as results of irrational decisions and ones that we continue to suffer from. What went wrong and what's going wrong, according to Brooks?

Brooks explains this error when he writes,
People studying the mind and brain are producing amazing insights about who we are, and yet these insights aren't having a sufficient impact on the wider culture. This book is an attempt to do that. It's an attempt to integrate science and psychology with sociology, politics, cultural commentary, and the literature of success. (page 377)

Although Books doesn't cite him, Lawrence Kubie, former Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University Maryland, identifies a primary error in Rational Man theory and most other academic work as well. It applies not only to current political and economic events but also to-- I am tempted to say especially to-- all academic fields. Rational Man economics, which brought us the Great Recession, and recreational war, which brought us Iraq, are just two obvious and outstanding instances.

Alerting scholars and academics and anticipating Brooks's book, Kubie alerts us to a systematic weakness in our thinking:

Every discipline has its tools, and each tool has its own inherent errors. ... A discipline comes of age and a student of that discipline reaches maturity when it becomes possible to recognize, estimate, and allow for their errors of their tools. This is true for physics, chemistry, physiology, the social sciences, the humanities, history, literature, and the like. Within its own field each of these disciplines is meticulously self-critical about the sources of error which reside in its special instruments.
Yet there is one instrument which every discipline uses without checking its errors, tacitly assuming that the instrument is error-free. This, of course, is the human psychological apparatus.

In Social Animal, Brooks points to research that points to "noncognitive skills" such as emotions, intuitions, biases, longings, genetic dispositions, character traits, social norms, and other unconscious processes as the most power part of our mind. They are responsible for both our achievements and our failures, both as individuals and as a society. Rational Man devotees may feel attacked and even angry when they read, "The conscious mind merely confabulates stories that try to make sense of what the unconscious mind is doing of its own accord." Their immediate anger, defensiveness, and denial, of course, are unconscious reactions, and their conscious minds will confabulate "reasons" to attack this idea.

Brooks presents his argument by creating the characters of Harold Erica (follows their business lives and marriage, and intersperses interpretations based on current research on the human mind. Harold, (raised in a culture of esteem and empowerment) has an unconscious formed by his personal history and Erica, (reared in a culture of deprivation and disorganization) from a lower working class background shows an unconscious largely formed by that background.

Although Social Animal includes class affects on their respective unconscious minds, the book is indirectly about status itself. Status affects people's minds, which in turn direct their lives via residing in the unconscious and directing their motivations, interpersonal relations, and abilities.

Critiquing economics, Brooks points out that both liberals and conservatives --in their conflicting ways--assume that there is a direct connection between improving material conditions and solving problems, but, "Both sides neglected matters of character, culture, and morality." These too grow from deeper interior parts of the human mind, and failure to study the mind builds in weak observations and dysfunctional policies.

In each chapter, we read about the lives of Erica and Harold, who, of course, get married, and Brooks presents their marital troubles' roots in the unconscious too. Brooks is not just making ideological statements. He cites a broad range of mind research to explain how his hero and heroine feel about their lives, and pays particular attention to their career paths and vocational achievements.

As they mature, age-stage problems occur, and Brooks explains how their psychological backgrounds sometimes helps cope with these problems and sometimes succumb to them.

These few bits catch some of the flavors of Social Animal:

* The most successful people are mildly delusional status inflators. (203)

* This is an old debate--the debate between On the Road and It's a Wonderful Life. (195)

* If [economists] acknowledged that behavior was not law-governed--if it was too unpredictable to be captured in mathematics and models--then they would no longer be economists. (180)

* Wisdom ... consists of knowing how to treat knowledge. (168)

* Great achievers practice in the most deliberate and self-critical way. (136)

* Students from the poorest quarter of the population have an 8.6 percent chance of getting a college degree. Students in the top quarter have a 75 percent of earning a college degree. Most of these differences have to do with unconscious skills --that is, attitudes, perceptions, and norms. (107)

As Erica becomes involved in national politics and serves on the White House staff, Brooks draws wittily sarcastic sketches of politicians and sketches the shallow hubbub of political campaigns. No doubt his years of insider journalism status has informed his insights. I wonder: is there a key to who these pungently humorous characters are or were in real political life, or are they composites from years of observation? I suppose political insiders will try hanging name tags on the characters.

Will Brooks be successful in his goal of enticing social scientists and the educated general population to incorporate findings about the unconscious and the dominance of the non-rational parts of our minds into their disciplinary and personal worldviews? I hope so, but so far--much to a Kubiesque type disappointment-- the social sciences prefer to plunge ahead ignoring the fact that the roots of human thought, motivation, achievement, and action draw their nurturance from deep within the human mind. I hope Brooks will not be disappointed. I expect he will.

Reference

Kubie, Lawrence. 1954. The Forgotten Man of Education. Harvard Alumni Bulletin, Vol. 56 pages 349-353.

Thomas B. Roberts
DeKalb, IL.

The book is comprised of two alternating types of writing. The first is a series of pithy book-review-like summaries of recent scientific findings in the social and cognitive sciences. The second is a fictitious narrative of two individuals from birth to their marriage meant, I take it, to illustrate the respective scientific findings.

Unfortunately, the little scientific reports Brooks gives are somewhere around the quality of posters one might find at a home-schooler science fair. David Brooks pompously strolls from field to field, from neuroscience to cultural anthropology to economics, his lack of expertise on full display.

The narrative sections are, remarkably, even worse. What's clear is that Brooks had his characters set in mind before doing whatever brief or sloppy scientific legwork he performed, and it's clear that legwork was largely spent mining for nuggets that support his predetermined picture of human psychology.

Worse still, this 400+ page book could easily be slashed to 120 and nothing of importance lost.

This is the type of book (and Brooks is the type of journalist) that makes scientists nauseous and fear for the future of their disciplines. Readers would be far better off either reading the primary social and cognitive scientific literature themselves, or reading popular versions written by experts in those fields.

I thought this book was spectacular. I teach SOC PSY and it is a challenge to explain concepts that don't have words. He somehow told the story of our non-linear inner world...linearly.

I will remember it always.

Thank you.

I enjoyed the narrative way in which David Brooks incorporated the information relating to human social development. The narrative makes the material more approachable, but because the main characters are not "real" people it detracts from the believability of the authors hypothesis.

It is not heavy on the technical information, but this is more about Brooks' interpretation of the data. If I want to do more in-depth study, I can go to the bibliography and determine which sources will be most helpful.

The Social Animal by David Brooks
The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement
by David Brooks
1276901
Carrie's review Oct 28, 14 · edit
3 of 5 stars

The Social Animal was written by David Brooks, a journalist who felt driven to reflect on the nature of our subconscious and unconscious mind. And because his research intersects with so many aspects of human life, such as politics, psychology, sociology, economics, etc. Mr. Brooks found a creative means of presenting this research. He invented two people and we follow their journey from in utero through to death. The culminating argument of this book is: “Our experience of ourselves is misleading.” He goes so far as to say, “We are not who we think we are.”

The rest of my review can be found here as I apply the book to creative practice: http://artistthink.com/2013/07/19/the...

The style that the author introduces those theories and scientific findings is genius. I learned so much natually and easily. Thanks for writing such a wonderful book and my past and future life now all look much clearer and more understandable to me. Strongly recommended.

Uses characters as a narrative to deliver research. The correlations in the research are sometimes interpreted too liberally requiring a suspension of judgement. All in all, very readable and relevant, I believe.

My first impression about "The Social Animal" is that I am wonderfully surprised that David Brooks had the guts to write it. When one lives and makes ones work in the major media, you are expected to behave in certain ways and to maintain your persona within certain predetermined confines. The price of celebrity is often the loss of humanity. Thankfully Brooks had the courage to face up to such image-protectionists and say "I have something else to say."

It is NOT a book echoing conservative theory or contemporary monetary policy - much of Mr. Brooks' professional expertise - but rather a series of real life observations couched in the guise of a hypothetical couple and their challenges through life. You'll recognize many of the observations in your own life and in the lives of people around you; but Brooks presents them with a certain nobility - a respectfulness - that is lacking in much of today's analyses. There is continuity and a path Books has made discernable by presenting life's events as an unspooling thread.

I don't want to make the argument that this work is particularly hard science, but it's comfortable, and it goes a long way in synthesizing the many real factors that go into one's existence upon this planet.

Thanks for having to guts to do this book, David. You've made reductionists everywhere to shudder.

After having a great lunch at Full Kee, then going to the excellent Degas show at the Phillips, and then finding Lai free at VSL to give us both haricuts back to back, I finally encountered something bad in the day. While the hubby was getting his haircut I went over to Kramer books to wait, and came across this latest emission from David Brooks. In leafing through the thing for 10 minutes a few things were clear. I don't know if he credits Richard Rorty anywhere in the book, because if not he has unknowingly lifted the thrust of his thought. And as Rorty was so influential in so many direction, Brooks may not even be aware what he is borrowing, With one big difference: Rorty is a genius and his philosophical considerations of some of the consequences of modern neuroscience have lead him to the most reasonable implications from such ideas. Namely, liberal implications. To put it simply, what neuroscience is able to tell the non-scientist is that generally a lot we think is under our control, isn't. Further, that philosophy or meta-reasoning on those insights would lead to a lot of compassion for what is not under control for many. AS well as an ambit of creativity based on that acknowledgment. In addition, the need for society to help people deal with both the results of those givens, and concomitantly the need to assume some real measure of moral responsibility for the "cards we are dealt'. But a book that begins with the meth-like insight that this will be the happiest book you ever read, is not very promising for insight into the human condition. Stylistically, also, a book which actually contains lines like "When Harold saw his dog, neurons fired.," is going to be painful both for dog lovers and for sensitive souls, which are normally the same sort of person. No, what this book is all too obviously about is just the attempt to make the very liberal implications of neuroscience into something that is safe for Republican types. It is again that benighted Goldilocks idea which reactionary types love lately. They know how to get it "just right" and will show you. Even if that flouts the basis of the very insights they are propounding. Brooks knows how to appeal to rich golfer-types who want a book that will tell them they did well for a reason having to to with them , and those who did not were somehow at fault. It is the same old stuff, and not only would I not buy it, you could not pay me to read this thing thoroughly.

I bought the audio version. The introduction was kind of interesting, after Listening to the first chapters i found myself fast forwarding. It was kinda boring. I wasn't much about social skills, but more about psychology.

Brooks has used fictional personalities and a story line to present interesting research results. This engages the reader throughout the book. Although I had seen most of these research results in other books and papers, what captivated me was the way Brooks tells the story and at the same time presents the research outcomes. It is a good read although I found the book somewhat long.

Although the books disuccses important issues of human development and some psychology and though, it hard to read. The author perhaps needs to use better and easy readable prose. I loved the book overall. It helped me crystalize a lot of thoughts about human development that I have had over many years but never had time to sit down and think things through. Kudos..

The data presented will completely change the way you think about yourself and others. Brooks does a fantastic job of taking very scientific data and presenting in an engaging and entertaining way through his use of two fictional characters.

David Brooks is an intelligent and patently nice fellow. However he made the same mistake in creating this book that Ronald Reagan's " official " biographer made some years ago, i.e. trying to fictionalize his message. Brooks is no writer of fiction, as this book proves. Instead it is a mash-up of various writings on psychology, sociology, neurology and various other disciplines. His own theories are tossed into the stew with little evidence that they add any spice. In short, the points that Brooks write about could have been made more cogently and clearly without the effort to shoehorn them into the form of fiction. An A for effort - a D for result.

I love all sorts of books... but this was just disappointing. Brooks dismissed every concept as quickly as he brought it up. If you are looking for a (mildly) intellectual book, then look elsewhere. I was hugely disappointed by this.

Brooks wrote a great book from an easily digest-able manner about how multiple facets of life can be explained with science, notably psychology. If you're looking for a science book explaining interesting facets of life but hate the scientific jargon, read this book for the great narrative.

There are at least three major types of writing. The first might be called Shakespeare's method, which includes the telling of stories with deep symbolic and archetypal lessons. Many of the great world religious texts used this approach. The Greeks referred to this as poetry, though the meaning of "poetry" is much more limited in modern usage. In the contemporary world we often call this type of writing fiction, though this is a misnomer since the stories used are not actually untrue--they are, many of them, literally true, and nearly all of them are symbolically true. This could also be called the Inspirational style of writing.

A second kind of writing can be summarized as Tocqueville's method, or the philosopher's style. Called prose, non-fiction, or editorializing, this type of literature consists of the author sharing her views, thoughts, questions, analyses and conclusions. Writers in this style see no need to document or prove their points, but they do make a case for their ideas. This way of writing gave the world many of the great classics of human history--in fields of thought spanning the arts, sciences, humanities and practical domains. This writing is Authoritative in style, meaning that the author is interested mostly in ideas (rather than proof or credibility) and writes as her own authority on what she is thinking.

The third sort of writing, what I'll call Einstein's method, attempts to prove its conclusions using professional language and appealing to reason, experts or other authority. Most scientific works, textbooks, and research-based books on a host of topics apply this method. The basis of such writing is to clearly show the reader the sources of assumptions, the progress of the author's thinking, and the basis behind each conclusion. Following the scientific method, this modern "Objective" style of writing emphasizes the credibility of the conclusions--based on the duplicable nature of the research and the rigorous analysis and deduction. Ideally, there are few leaps of logic in this kind of prose.

Each type of writing has its masters, and all offer valuable contributions to the great works of human literature. This is so obvious that it hardly needs to be said, but we live in a world where the third, Objective, style of writing is the norm and anything else is often considered inferior. Such a conclusion, ironically, is not a scientifically proven fact. Indeed, how can science prove that anything open to individual preference and taste is truly "best?" For example, such greats as Churchill, Solzhenitsyn and Allan Bloom (author of The Closing of the American Mind) have shown that "Tocqueville's" style is still of great value in modern times--as do daily op eds in our leading newspapers and blogs. Likewise, our greatest plays, movies and television programs demonstrate that the Shakespearean method still has great power in our world.

That said, David Brooks' new book The Social Animal: A Story of Love, Character and Achievement manages to combine all three styles in one truly moving work. I have long considered Brooks one of my favorite authors. I assigned his book Bobos In Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There as an undergraduate and graduate college text for several years, and I have recommended his book On Paradise Drive to many students and executives who wanted to understand American and modern culture. In one of the best descriptions of our society ever written, he outlined the new realities experienced by the "average" American citizen, whom he called "Patio Man." I have also enjoyed many of his editorials in The New York Times--and the ongoing, albeit unofficial and indirect, "debate" between his columns and those of Thomas L. Friedman, Paul Krugman, George Will and, occasionally, Peggy Noonan.

The Social Animal is, in my opinion, his best work to date. In fact, it is downright brilliant. I am not suggesting that it approaches Shakespeare, of course. But who does? Still, the stories in The Social Animal flow like Isaac Asimov-meets-Ayn Rand. It doesn't boast deep scientific technical writing, as Brooks himself notes. Indeed, Brooks doesn't even attempt to produce a great Shakespearean or scientific classic. But he does effectively weave the three great styles of writing together, and in the realm of philosophical writing this book is similar to Tocqueville's Democracy in America. The content of the book, in fact, is as close as we may ever see to a 21st century update to Tocqueville (1830s) and Bryce (1910s).

I know this is high praise, and in our modern era with its love of objective analysis, such strong language is suspect in "educated" circles. But my words are not hyperbole. This is an important book. It is one of the most important books we've seen in years--probably since Fareed Zakaria's The Post-American World or Daniel Pink's A Whole New Mind. This book is in the same class as Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations, Strauss and Howe's The Fourth Turning, or Phillipp Bobbitt's The Shield of Achilles. It is as significant as any article in Foreign Affairs since Richard Gardner's writings. It reads like Steven Pinker channelling Alexis de Tocqueville. The language is, well, beautiful--but beautiful in the modern sense, like the writings of Laura Munson or Sandra Tsing Loh.

The book also manages to bridge political views--I think liberals will find it moving and conservatives will find it convincing. It is not exactly Centrist, but neither is it patently Right or Left. It will appeal to independents and people from all political perspectives. If it has a political leaning, it is the party of Common Sense--backed by meticulous research.

Moreover, The Social Animal clouds typical publishing stereotypes. I'm not sure where big bookstores will shelve it. It is a book on culture, politics, education, and career. It is a book about entertainment, marriage and language. It is about the upper, middle and lower classes in modern American society, how they interrelate and what challenges are ahead as they clash. It is about current events and future challenges. It is, above all, a book about success. It goes well beyond books on Habits or The Secret or even "Acres of Diamonds."

As Brooks himself put it:
"Over the centuries, zillions of books have been written about how to succeed. But these tales are usually told on the surface level of life. They describe the colleges people get into, the professional skills they acquire, the conscious decisions they make, and the tips and techniques they adopt to build connections and get ahead. These books often focus on an outer definition of success, having to do with IQ, wealth, prestige, and worldly accomplishments.

"This story [The Social Animal] is told one level down. This success story emphasizes the role of the inner mind--the unconscious realm of emotions, intuitions, biases, longings....

"...we are not primarily the products of our conscious thinking. We are primarily the products of thinking that happens below the level of awareness."

Brooks argues that: "The research being done today reminds us of the relative importance of emotion over pure reason, social connections over individual choice, character over IQ, emergent, organic systems over linear, mechanistic ones, and the idea that we have multiple selves over the idea that we have a single self."

The book deals with such intriguing topics as:
* Modern dating and courtship
* Today's marriages and what makes them succeed--or not
* The scientific versus popular views of child development
* Cultural trends such as global-warming awareness assemblies in high schools
* The scientific foundations of violence
* The kind of decision-making that leads to success versus mediocrity and failure
* A veritable manual for success in college
* The powerful leadership techniques of priming, anchoring, framing, limerance, fractals, metis and multiparadigm teams, among others (it is worth reading the book just for this)
* How to "ace" job interviews
* The new phases of life progression
* Effectively starting a new business--the steps, techniques, values and needed character traits
* Leadership in the modern corporation
* How to win a revolution by only making a call for small reforms
* The effectiveness of a talent for oversimplification
* The supreme power of a life's viewpoint

The Social Animal struck a personal note with me because it brilliantly describes the true process of great mentoring that more of our teachers need to adopt and that I wrote about in The Student Whisperer. I have seldom seen truly great teaching described better than Brooks has done.

This book is primarily about success--specifically success in our complex modern world--but at a deeper level it is about happiness.

Brooks writes:
"We still have admissions committees that judge people by IQ measures and not by practical literacy. We still have academic fields that often treat human beings as rational utility-maximizing individuals. Modern society has created a giant apparatus for the cultivation of the hard skills, while failing to develop the moral and emotional faculties down below. Children are coached on how to jump through a thousand scholastic hoops. Yet by far the most important decisions they will make are about whom to marry and whom to befriend, what to love and what to despise, and how to control impulses. On these matters, they are almost entirely on their own. We are good at talking about material incentives, but bad about talking about emotions and intuitions. We are good at teaching technical skills, but when it comes to the most important things, like character, we have almost nothing to say."

The book, like any true "classic" (and I am convinced this will be one), is deep and broad. It includes such gems as:
* "The food at their lunch was terrible, but the meal was wonderous."
* "For example, six-month-old babies can spot the different facial features of different monkeys, even though, to adults, they all look the same."
* In his high school, "...life was dominated by a universal struggle for admiration."
* "The students divided into the inevitable cliques, and each clique had its own individual pattern of behavior."
* "Fear of exclusion was his primary source of anxiety."
* "Erica decided that in these neighborhoods you could never show weakness. You could never back down or compromise."
* "In middle class country, children were raised to go to college. In poverty country they were not."
* Jim Collins "...found that many of the best CEOs were not flamboyant visionaries. They were humble, self-effacing, diligent, and resolute souls who found one thing they were really good at and did it over and over again. They did not spend a lot of time on internal motivational campaigns. They demanded discipline and efficiency."
* "Then a quiet voice could be heard from the other end of the table. `Leave her alone.' It was her mother. The picnic table went silent."
* "Erica resolved that she would always try to stand at the junction between two mental spaces. In organizations, she would try to stand at the junction of two departments, or fill in the gaps between departments."
* "School asks students to be good at a range of subjects, but life asks people to find one passion that they will do forever."
* "His missions had been clearly marked: get good grades, make the starting team, make adults happy. Ms. Taylor had introduced a new wrinkle into his life--a love of big ideas."
* "...if Steve Jobs had come out with an iWife, they would have been married on launch day."
* "Epistemological modesty is the knowledge of how little we know and can know."

There are so many more gems of wisdom. For example, Brooks notes that in current culture there is a new phase of life. Most of today's parents and grandparents grew up in a world with four life phases, including "childhood, adolescence, adulthood and old age." Today's young will experience at least six phases, Brooks suggests: childhood, adolescence, odyssey, adulthood, active retirement, and old age.

While many parents expect their 18- and 19-year-old children to go directly from adolescence to the adult life of leaving home and pursuing their own independent life and a marriage relationship, their children are surprising (and confusing) them by embracing their odyssey years: living at home, then wandering, then back home for a time, taking a long time to "play around" with their education before getting serious about preparing for a career, and in general enjoying their youthful freedom. Most parents are convinced they're kids are wasting their lives when in fact this is the new normal.

The odyssey years actually make a lot of sense. The young "...want the security and stability adulthood brings, but they don't want to settle into a daily grind. They don't want to limit their spontaneity or put limits on their dreams." Parents can support this slower pace with two thoughts: 1) the kids usually turn out better because they don't force themselves to grow up too fast like earlier generations did, and 2) the parents get to enjoy a similar kind of relaxed state in the "active retirement phase."

Most odysseys pursue life in what Brooks calls The Group--a small team of friends who help each other through this transition. Members of a Group talk a lot, play together, frequently engage entrepreneurial or work ventures with each other, and fill the role of traditional families during this time of transition. Even odysseys who live at home for a time usually spend much of their time with their Group.

This book is full of numerous other ideas, stories, studies, and commentaries. It is the kind of reading that you simply have to mark up with a highlighter on literally every page.

Whether you agree or disagree with the ideas in this book--or, hopefully, both--it is a great read. Not a good read, but a great one. Some social conservatives may dislike certain things such as the language used by some characters or the easy sexuality of some college students, and some liberals may question the realistic way characters refuse to accept every politically-correct viewpoint in society--but both are accurate portrayals of many people in our current culture.

The Social Animal may not remain on the classics list as long as Democracy in America, but it could. At the very least, it is as good a portrayal of modern society as Rousseau's Emile was in its time. It provides a telling, accurate and profound snapshot of American life at the beginning of the 21st Century. Reading it will help modern Americans know themselves at a much deeper level.

This is a book about many things, including success and happiness as mentioned above. But it is also a classic book on freedom, and on how our society defines freedom in our time. As such, it is an invaluable source to any who care about the future of freedom. Read this book to see where we are, where we are headed, and how we need to change. The Social Animal is required reading for leaders in all sectors and for people from all political persuasions who want to see freedom flourish in the 21st century.

od

Oliver DeMille is the author of several books including FreedomShift,The Coming Aristocracy and A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the Twenty-First Century, as well a popular public speaker. See his blog and other works at [...]. Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

With amazing coherence, David Brooks has organized an enormous amount of conceptual information about the current models of the human mind.

While this book differs fundamentally from The Eighth Day of Creation by Horace Freeland Judson, it has a similar objective.

Very few scientists have the ability, interest or time to write an in-depth story about their field to people outside of their field. Practicing scientists write for colleagues. Like Judson, a historian, Brooks writes for audiences without and with scientific training, presenting a holistic framework around the primary literature while always using language accessible by non-experts. This dual straddling of technical levels, which provides everyone with something significant to contemplate, characterizes the best lecturers of science.

Brooks prefaces this excursion into the social sciences with the reassurance that "[t]his is the happiest story you've ever read." Hardly. This is an ordinary story often interrupted, more so in the beginning, less so in the middle, and susceptible to detours near the end. Early on, the story takes a backseat to what feels like voluminous social research related to courtship and the bonds between parent and child. Towards the middle, the social research and story advance side by side--making Brooks' primary point more clear: the world, and those who are in it, are largely deaf to the influences that make it whole. Fortunately, the story's main characters are not, and as the story reaches its climax, the action of their lives is supplanted by isolated contemplation. A contemplation that is essentially a diversion from both the story and the research as Brooks lays out a policy prescription for our most prevalent social ills. The prescription (which as envisioned by his protagonist is remarkably similar to that shared by a certain New York Times columnist) is sure to ruffle a few feathers--on both the left and the right.

All of this is fine because, despite the reassurances, the narrative is deliberately subservient to Brooks' main objective: to show that non-cognitive influences are much more determinative of our life course than we realize. These non-cognitive influences, which unknowingly battle with our cognitive selves, come in many forms. And Brooks uses his story to unpack a plethora of scientific research to uncover not only the influences, but also to explain how the battle can shape our lives. Largely absent in this battle, however, are any religious influences. Also missing are the powerful impacts individual relationships can have in shaping our lives, the two main characters essentially live separate lives.

To this reader, the absence of these influences makes the story feel a bit artificial, and throughout, Brooks tends to overplay his hand. True, no one knows from where the prevailing winds blow in our lives (Brooks colorfully refers to this mysterious source as "the Big Shaggy"), but the decisions we make in harnessing them largely determine our course.

But while this reader wasn't persuaded, any other reader might be, and many more are likely to find more than a few morsels to satisfy them. This is because you don't read this book to be persuaded. Neither do you read it to be entertained. You read it to indulge yourself in the cornucopia of ideas Brooks lays out before you. If you do so, you likely won't be disappointed.

While there is a wealth of research woven into the story of two fictional characters, Erica and Harold, regarding how our subconscious is a greater driver of our behavior that our conscious choices, Brooks writing strong suit is his remarkable essays that appear in the New York Times (which I and a legion of other fans avidly follow) - not fiction. Creating fully-fleshed out characters is a very different art.

While Brooks' knowledge and passion for psychology is evident. His main characters never come alive to me nor does the narrative move the plot forward, rather it seems to be carrying the burden of the omany interesting insights he wants to share. We meet the two main characters when they are young, before they meet each other, and see how their marriage and work lives unfold as we learn their underlying triggers that cause them to make choices- thus we are taken into Brooks' main thesis: we have less control over how we think, feel and act than we believe we do.

Most of what motivates us is ingrained in our sensory memories and becomes habitual over time, Brooks points out in many ways, buttressed by research, yet that is my intuitive notion anyway. It is probably too much to ask of anyone that they offer suggestions about how to make wiser or more self-aware choices in light of that notion.

In other places I've found two tools that have helped me to some extent: awareness practices from Buddhism that enable me to separate my ego (just a tiny bit in my case) to detach somewhat from the situation and see it more clearly and lucid dreaming in which I can set out a situation, more freed from subconscious, and on that "stage" see my own inclinations more clearly to also be less "ruled" by subconscious patterns.

Thus, for me anyway, and unlike Brooks' views as explained in his book, I believe in introspection - including understanding my emotions rather than subduing them - as well as attempting to continuously observing my actions.

My two favorite chapters are The Map Meld, Mindsight, Attachment and Limerence.

Brooks takes his reasoning into public life, from policy-making to community-building and friendships, hoping for better outcomes yet, from my perspective, underestimates the effect of early childhood experiences on capacity to become emotionally intelligent or develop self-control - or not - so some of his conclusions veer towards what might make rational sense, yet not, ironically, behavior sense as we are, in fact "social animals."

Regardless of the failings of this book for me it was still fascinating to see such a wide swath of social science - especially cognitive science - covered by such a thoughtful, conscientious and modest.... thinker.

He ends his Acknowledgements section of the book on this note: "And it is a pleasure to thank my wife, Sarah. As she can attest, I may write about emotion and feelings, but that's not because I'm naturally good at expressing them. It's because I'm naturally bad at it." And that approach to life and writing is one of the many reasons I deeply admire Brooks and will continue to read his columns.

Some books I've found helpful - and that offer insights into ways motivates us to act includeNudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational BehaviorInfluence: The Psychology of Persuasion (Collins Business Essentials) Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives -- How Your Friends' Friends' Friends Affect Everything You Feel, Think, and DoHow We DecideThe Art of Choosing

A truly magnificent survey of human experience. Each topic is carefully explored, however the book doesn't presume to be the final authority on it's material; that isn't its purpose. Rather, Brooks has respectfully walked a balance between the disciplined scholarship and interpretive liberty.

The Social Animal was written in a style that I found downright cheesy. Brooks humor was so self-congratulatory and throughout my reading I imagined him laughing at his own corny jokes. Brooks has many interesting facts in this book, citing various studies on how psychology affects our social life. I found some passages moving, particularly the quote of the Holocaust victim coming to a realization of her own humanity in the face of an evil that forced her to live without it. The whole story of the successful couple, of their psycho-social development and relationship with one another was hackneyed. It was just a means for Brooks to rehash others ideas in a simplified version for the mass consumer. There is a great deal to learn from this book, but the way it was told made me roll my eyes as if I was being lectured by a man who was writing for an adolescent about to hit puberty. That so many people enjoyed this book is a testament to its sheer accessibility; the simplistic way Brooks references articles and studies to summarize the latest advances in psychology. I would prefer to read the original sources than hear Brooks. It has been a few years since I have read this book, and I can empathize with what Brooks wants us to get out of it. He wants our families to be stronger. He wants children to have a more classical education that is rigorous, wide, and that teaches civics. He wants us to participate more, to organize better, and to raise our standards as a society. Brooks, in his way, wants us to be more like him and his neighbors in Bethesda. What he doesn't want is radical change. He doesn't want a fundamental restructuring of our society.

I read The Social Animal a few years ago, shortly after it was released. However, what I wrote above was my general impression of his rather dry and banal book. If one follows Brooks conservative politics, they often appreciate his sensibility, his logic, his like-ability. But this is a man that advocates war, that encourages his son to fight not for American wars he advocates, but to fight for Zionism by joining the army in Israel. Brooks is a man with deep moral flaws who doesn't acknowledge his imperialist mentality that underpins his militant liberal foreign policy, or his neoconservative ideology that leads him to advocate a socially conservative return to 1950s prep-school style education where strong and traditional families instill discipline and classics and generally raise a new generation of "ugly Americans".

The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement

Political writer and commentator, David Brooks, switches gears to explore why we do what we do and why we are the way we are in "The Social Animal." Brooks uses recent neuroscience research to illuminate the complexity of our brain and cognitive process. He shows that decisions about our careers, our loves, and life stem from the interaction of the conscious mind with the unconscious mind.

And our unconscious mind, according to Brooks, is the elephant in the room. Most important decisions start there and are then informed by the conscious mind. The shaping of this interaction between the unconscious with the unconscious begins in childhood influenced by the culture - family and community. We cannot escape this influence as it leaves an indelible print on our character.

"The Social Animal" is provocative, showing that our most important life decisions will not be informed by reason but will be rooted in the filter provided by the unconscious. Brooks provides a fascinating look into the subconscious, its influence, and how habits and strategies are needed to subdue it.

I like David Brooks for his political discourse on TV and his columns (although I do not agree with his viewpoint), so I wanted to like this book. It has a very scientific style of writing and you really have to love the subject. I don't.

Where to begin? This was perhaps the most over-hyped and underwhelming book I have read over the last ten years. I am an avid (and non-professional) student of brain research. What I was expecting was a kind of unified field theory of the latest in brain research; at least that is what Brooks proposes. Instead Brooks delivers up a dog's breakfast of anecdotes meant illustrate various findings of brain sciences that he strives to place in the Western philosophical context. Is it useful to quote Plato to illustrate roots of inattentional blindness? No it is not, particularly when he does not even address the fundamental cognitive phenomena.

What Brooks does is dumb down some really interesting brain research and creates a narrative with fictional characters to illustrate it. This narrative technique, used judiciously, as David Rock does in "Your Brain at Work", can make the abstract concrete. Thus you realize that your amygdala firing away leads to yelling at your kids or your partner. Used promiscuously as Brooks does, this technique becomes tiresome and ultimately does not inform the reader. So what he produces is a novel without a plot.

If you are new to the field, try "Invisible Gorilla", "Your Brain at Work", "Predictably Irrational".

I really enjoyed this book. Its underlying message seemed to indicate that the world is not entirely logical, and that human behavior can't be modeled under the assumption that individuals exhibit free will when making daily decisions. I was surprised to see a conservative journalist push such a message, but then again, that might be why the message seems to have more creedance.

David Brooks delivers a powerful narrative. His book assimilates studies in neuroscience, psychology, sociology, and behavioral economics to paint a composite picture of the world in which we live.

Despite some of its criticism, I enjoyed it. No question, Mr. Brooks expects sharp reactions, and the subject matter guarantees it. My best recommendation is for folks 'consciously' not to over-analyze it. Just absorb it.

By design, for example, he does not precisely define his characters. They're sketches meant for reflection.

Some of the scientific studies he cites may or may not hold water, and he might at times contradict himself. But his message that social skills, or intuition, matters is worth considering.

Most significant, he advances a dialogue about reason and social structures that until now is mostly scattered across academic disciplines, and which mainstream folks increasingly recognize but do not necessarily appreciate.

For this accomplishment, we should thank him.

If the store would allow it, I would give this book a minus star rating.
Mr Brooks takes what could is fascinating information and presents it in a way that manages to be both condescending and sappy.
The characters of Harold and Erica, that he uses to present the information, are so cartoonish, that they get in the way of of the reader's access to the information.
There is so much new and interesting information on the subject of human thought, development, and character, but I found it difficult to find it in this text.
I have heard Mr Brooks speak. He knows his stuff. I just wish that he had written this in a more direct manner.

I got this book only about a week, so far I have read only a few pages. I did not expect Brook to write a book in psychalogy or a fiction. I certainly hope Brooks wrote about political animals, those in United States and abroad, since Brroks is known as one of the leading political commentator in states.

Thank goodness such an intelligent man writes about character. Bravo David Brooks. For a light hearted and humorous take on the same subject please read LESSONS FROM STANLEY THE CAT. It is a perfect gift book. Lessons from Stanley the Cat: Nine Lives of Everyday Wisdom

This is one of those unusual books I purchase several times - even before I finish reading it. That's how much it's worth considering & sharing. I don't have to agree with everything David Brooks suggests to appreciate this great effort. Even if Brooks gets something wrong - which he surely does sometimes - he is a trustworthy narrator. I do disagree with some of Brooks' conclusions/interpretations of data. But I don't think he's out to win converts to his specific way of thinking. That's just not what this book is about. Brooks has managed to wrestle creatively and intelligently with complex and subject matter (emotional life/subconscious/mind).

Some of the writing is hilarious. Some of the observations - thought provoking. This is a book worth savoring and discussing. It isn't offensive. It isn't perfect -- but he pulls it all off, well enough. I unequivocally recommend this book to anyone who is interested in thinking.

The major flaw of this book is that it NEEDS a Bibliography.

There are many things about this book that are different, not "familiar." It took me awhile to get my ahead around the fictitious characters - the allegory - and to settle in to the leisurely pace - I repeat - this is not a quick read. I understand why some people are comparing this book to the work of Malcolm Gladwell or Jonah Lehrer - but I personally prefer The Social Animal to those works. I prefer the tone & the attitude.

In some ways, this book reminded me of Kiss of the Spider Woman by Manuel Puig. (Although the subject is very different, of course.) The structure is similar. Brooks' extensive notes & citations reminded me of Puig's brilliant use of footnotes. Again, whether everything is absolutely definitively correct, is not as significant as the overall impressive presentation of ideas.

A criticism of this book is that it is full of pop or pseudo psychology. There might be an element of truth in that, but it's still a book filled with fascinating insights into human behavior. A fun read that triggered a ton of dinner table conversations in our home!

I obtained this book with a great deal of expectation, having watched an interview of the (well known) author by Charlie Rose. The subject, neuroscience (broadly speaking), has been prominent lately, particularly in the light of functional brain imaging.

Based on the bibliography the book appears well researched, although I am in no position to judge the depth the author has reached and the validity of the impressions arrived at. The subject is not entirely apolitical and Mr. Brooks has his own political views. To what extent his biases have influenced the choice of references is not possible for me to fathom.

The narrative style is unique. There is an imaginary family moving through the current environment and interspersed with their life experiences are analytical tid-bits, apparently based on current 'scientific' thinking. The narrative is uniquely American (knowledge of current American cliches and social life helpful, but not absolutely necessary) and takes the form of a Television program with intermittent commercials (you decide which the narrative is and which the commercial). The story narrated is rather crude and robotic and, if I may use the most abused cliche, incredible.

I found the book tedious, boring, verbose and shallow. There is a lot of information touched upon but poorly analyzed. If you like TV 'Informacials' this book may be for you. By the way, it's a great book to practice 'speed-reading', just skip the commercials!

David Brooks has done something amazing with The Social Animal. The book is a multidisciplinary whirlwind of commentary on American society and the human condition. The way he has woven together a narrative using insights from cognitive science is refreshing and true to our times. Using his characters to both embody and present ideas about how to shape a society that reflects appreciation for what we know and what we don't know, Brooks maintains his signature balance of humility and boldness. Indeed, as it is built on cutting-edge science and many questions about the brain and politics that may never be answered, this book truly practices what it preaches.

The Social Animal is an exciting step in the emergent conversation about the social implications of insights coming out of brain science. Other books on behavioral economics, happiness, decision-making and political psychology have paved the way for a non-scientist such as Brooks to make a meaningful science-based contribution to our society's discourse on how we define success (and decide how to measure it..) in politics, education and life itself. The Social Animal uses modern science to breathe life into philosophies of the British Enlightenment (as opposed to the French), and to show how excitingly relevant these ideas are to today. Yet in a larger sense, Brooks has presented a challenge for us to come to terms with the inevitability of uncertainty in life, to build institutions that address our weaknesses and play to our strengths, and to fully embrace our need for each other.

There is a lot to chew on as Brooks plays with the conscious and unconscious parts of our brains, while telling us explicitly about them. The Social Animal captures the pulse of some ideas that I think can and should prove of serious consequence. I find myself simply glad that Brooks took on this project, and I hope that many others will--true to the chapter on limerence--lose themselves and see themselves in the experiments, allegorical life-cycles, philosophies and political insights in this book.

I listened to David pitch his book for an hour on the Medved radio show.
I have always disliked Brooks on TV, but I liked him for an hour.

He said he grew up in the 60s with liberal parents that took him to a B-in in NYC where people threw their wallets into a burn barrel to denounce materialism.
The 5 year old David saw a $5 bill on fire, grabbed it, and ran away. That was his first turn to the right.

The "Social Animal" is a brilliant, important, and shocking book and I hope it gets the attention it deserves. The author, David Brooks, is an esteemed commentator and journalist for the New York Times, various news magazines and television, and book author of a couple of sociologically-based examinations of American culture. He is deeply respectful of science and rationality, a clear thinker, and is remarkably fair-minded about his opinions of public and social matters.

The book synthesizes a growing body of research findings from primarily neurobiology, psychology, and sociology, into a new perspective of human life. This perspective emphasizes that there is an unconscious realm of emotions, intuitions, biases, genetic predispositions, and other elements which characterize human beings and that this realm (he calls it Level 1) is vastly more influential and controlling than the rational, logical level (Level 2) we like to consider paramount. In major ways, our cognition is but a rationalization of these unconscious elements. He argues persuasively that understanding the Level 1 component of human beings has crucial implications for policymaking, societal progress, and the meaningfulness of human life.

The brilliant part: the science findings are threaded into a fictional easy to read narrative of the life development of an archetypical couple, Harold and Erika, showing how the science is relevant to nearly all elements of their lives like decision-making, attachment, learning, norms, self-control, culture, intelligence, commitment, limerence (the correlation of inner understanding and the real world,) metis (rational guidance of the unconscious self,) morality, and meaning.

The unconscious elements of these people are analyzed over the course of their development from birth, childhood, adolescence, middle and old ages, to death. Separate descriptive filters highlight the gender and class differences of these people along the course of their development. Even with all of the science and technical material, the book reads easily; the narratives of Harold and Erika are both interesting and enlightening. Brooks mixes in a sprinkling of humor, wit, and some sarcasm, mostly directed towards grand egos of the upper middle classes. The snarkiness takes away from the presentation but is minimal.

Brooks is a very good explainer. He demonstrates that the facts of this emerging science lead to crucial implications: it is factually more accurate to consider people less as individuals and more like social animals having a multitude of overlapping network-like connections to other people and that reason and emotion are not separate and conflicting elements of human life but are inextricably threaded. The emotional elements are vastly more powerful and influential than rationality even in factors like perception, logic, and evaluation.

The important part: these insights into what people are and how they behave create a recognition that much of governmental policymaking and societal attempts to influence behavior and attitudes is flawed. He provides examples of the failures of policy based on rational choice, the incorrect assessments of students and others based on linear, reductionist, standards instead of a more holistic sense of social character; the failure of institutions to support and develop moral skills; and the use of material incentives instead of moral/psychological ones.

The lesson to be learned is that a new understanding of these issues can lead to an entirely new way of influencing human affairs in a direction more likely to result in positive things-greater efficiency in the use of human and material resources; more harmony and community spirit in society; and a more satisfied public rewarded with more meaningful experiences and life outcomes.

The shocking part: Brooks is a self-described conservative who, after acknowledging the scientific facts and letting the logical implications lead where they will, sees that social networks (the more the better) are more important than individualism, that social character it is more valuable than material well-being, that government should actively encourage development of social character, and that great progress in human affairs is achievable through active, intelligent methods. There are hints of the humanist Karl Marx present in his recognition of the theoretical flaws in capitalist ideology. Brooks goes so far as to say that the new science and its implications lead to the notion that socialism (properly understood) is the preferred model of human affairs. Not necessarily government dominated life, and certainly not the state "socialism" of the mid- 20th century totalitarianisms, but a hybrid form of private self governance guided by government.

I can only outline the essence of the book here but it is rich throughout with descriptions of the relevant science; characterizations of classes, groups, ideas, and policies; and detailed reexaminations of the qualities of human life.

Brooks's mention of the "s" word and his astonishing conclusion that a socialistic model of human affairs is best able to lead to a better society demonstrates remarkable courage and intellectual honesty. I suspect that he will be dropped off a number of Christmas card mailing lists of his conservative friends and associates. But, no matter. There are clues that indicate that these characters together may be an alter ego of the author, especially the male, Harold. Brook's Harold and Erika are people who have achieved personal success and have built high social character. They represent the type of people who exemplify the best possible human beings, the type most people (according to the science) would like themselves and their neighbors to be. There is reason to believe that society can achieve this kind of progress.

The quasi-novelistic format of the book seems to be an attempt to deal with the paradox of communicating Level 1 concepts via Level 2 methodology-facts, logic, linearity, and reason. Can this approach be expected to work? Won't it be deflected off into irrelevance by the forces of level 1? This a theme which subjective theorists have been wrestling with for years, with no resolution.

An action plan to implement the book's conclusion is absent, fairly enough, as Brooks has done his fair share of intellectual lifting. Another omission is an explanation of how any action plan would deal with the dynamics of capitalism and rational self-interest, including the manipulation and exploitation of Level 1 factors by self interested parties (marketeers, special interests, etc.).

The "Social Animal" articulates the factual basis, it seems to me, for the feelings and desires of many millions of Americans (at least) that well-applied human reason can do great things.

(FTC disclosure (16 CFR Part 255): The reviewer has accepted a reviewer's copy of this book which is his to keep. He intends to provide an honest, independent, and fair evaluation of the book in all circumstances.)

I found this to be a fascinating book, even though I am not in the same space on the political spectrum as Brooks. (Though I think he does a pretty fair job criticizing both the left and the right in today's overheated political zoo.) On occasion it is laugh-out-loud funny. I was a little surprised to see so many negative and semi-negative reviews on this site, and then I realized that the reason why some reviewers don't like this book is because they are in it.

Is David Brooks a sociologist? a psychologist? some other kind of social scientist? an expert in education? No, no, no and no. Brooks is not even a legitimate journalist. Throwing some pungent words on a page and getting them printed in an op-ed column, and becoming a popular yes-man/cheerleader to conservatives, doesn't make one a journalist. What motivated me to write this review is first of all the book itself. However, the fact that Brooks has made a career out of being a republican, right-wing gunslinger can't be overlooked here because this book is nothing more than his personal right-wing spin on how republicans imagine reality. There are hundreds of studies done in social sciences every year. Some of those studies are sponsored by corporate/conservative organizations, and, amazingly, they often manage to come to conclusions that are completely counter to the results of the massive bulk of studies done over the past sixty years or so. This book is in that same vein. It is pure propaganda. Brooks manages to pepper his book with some niceties and an occasional good-sounding idea, albeit nothing really original. But his sweet words are merely a lure to sell the conservative idea that, somehow, schools would be just wonderful if only they were corporate run ($$$) and based on data-driven accountability. The man actually has the gall to preach about love while at the very same time proposing changes that would rip the very heart out of education. Think about it. Corporate run schools producing mindless worker bees and prolific consumers. What a wonderful society -- wonderful for the corporate oligarchy. That's not science-fiction folks, it's very real. That's what they want. It never ceases to boggle my mind how Brooks and others continue to spout the glories of the money, profit, business, corporate model of everything. Never mind that American schools worked just fine, at their very best, from 1947 to 1981, without the corporate model. Never mind that not a single great leader in the history of our country -- or any other -- was a former business 'leader'. And never mind that the corporate model of 'everything' has nearly bankrupted, both morally and financially, the American people and it's government. Everyone is in dire economic straights -- except major stockholders, CEOs and upper level corporate managers -- and, of course, the very well paid republican operatives.

The concept is interesting, but the book itself really isn't. Brooks follows his rather bland Everyman couple, Harold and Erica, through their achievement-driven, status-seeking lives, noting their ups and downs as individuals and as a couple,and attempting to explaining every thought they think, every move they make, with the some sort of sociological, psychological, or scientific research. Sounds intriguing, but it's somehow lacking. First, Harold and Erica aren't particularly interesting. They don't seem real; they come across as some sort of laboratory-created creatures, constructs created for the sole purpose of being observed and described. Although Brooks describes their thoughts and actions in detail, it's not particularly compelling. Harold and Erica lack the intrigue and complexity of real characters. Second, Brooks doesn't really explore any of the "scientific" or sociological references in any depth. Brooks seems to have done his homework, as the book frequently references third party research, some of which is interesting, yet it comes off more as name-dropping, or having an interesting fact to throw into cocktail party conversation, than as a real study of human behavior. He tosses lots of facts and references into the mix, one-liners, with maybe a full paragraph here and there, but doesn't seem to develop the ideas.

This book is difficult to characterize -- it reads more like a novel about not-so-interesting characters than like nonfiction, but it is not a page-turner, nor is it something you can digest at a single sitting. This book is long, nearly 400 pages, and dense, with most pages referencing some professor's study about this or that. There are plenty of references to pop culture -- references to Baby Einstein, Ikea, etc. -- that occasionally seem a little forced. Overall, it's mildly interesting, though not compelling, nor it is particularly satifsying to read.

Read this article "David Brooks' Dream World for the Trust-Fund Set", from The Salon Magazine article, by PZ Myers: [...].

Or take my word that you don't want to read this book you're hoping to learn neuroscience or even psychology. If you want to read about two wealthy people who rise to success with little conflict but still end up crying in the shower, then go for it.

David Brooks is witty and insightful and I always finish one of his books wishing I could sit down and have a cup of coffee with him. Whether you're conservative or liberal, you have to appreciate his mesh of sociology, anthropology and political observation as well as the incredible brio of his writing. The man absolutely defines civil discourse. I kept reading bits of it out loud to my husband until he finally decided to read it himself.

The book is one of the more interesting pop psychology books I have read. However, it does lose its excitement after the middle or so. I didn't finish it entirely as I just lost interest once the character (Harold and Erica) got old. Still, I recommend it as a good read and it is well worth the $10 or so.

A fascinating book that comes closer to explaining why living in America today feels the way it does than any other book. Some of the insights are disconcerting, some of them make you sit back and say "wow!", and many of them are inspiring and energizing. Brooks's analysis of partisan politics is refreshing and should be read aloud on the Senate floor. A must read for anyone in business, law, or politics.

This is a good book. The other reviews speak for the book better tan i can. To those of you who say that the fictional character "mofti" "never works" is a dramatic exaggeration. Try reading the Goal by E. M. Goldratt.

I wanted to enjoy this book -- a grand idea to integrate disparate threads of human research by a smart writer I enjoy reading in the New York Times, a book profiled over two pages in Newsweek and featured by the Scientific American Book Club -- but unfortunately I found it ultimately unsatisfying. For someone who hasn't read about modern psychology advances, this may be a good primer. But for most people the wide range and added space of a narrative device results in too shallow a depth to be fulfilling. It's not that Brooks has things wrong or couldn't go deeper if he tried; it's that there is not room.

In the introduction Brooks explains "I'm writing this story, first, because while researchers in a wide variety of fields have shone their flashlights into different parts of the cave of the unconscious, illuminating different corners and openings, much of their work is done in academic silos. I'm going to try and synthesize their findings into one narrative." This is exactly what he does, combining the wide expanses of psychology from neuroscience to social groups and behavioral economics, using a literary device used by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1760 for the book "Emile". We follow two fictional characters through their life, seeing how recent scientific findings shape them and their inner life. Some of this fiction is witty and insightful, all of it is well-written, but as fiction it is not enough. It does not work as literature that shows not tells. The science is fascinating, and fully referenced, but the sketches are too fast and pass too quickly. The insights and implications of human connection, friendship and love are illuminating and sometimes exhilarating, but somehow it doesn't quite gel. Many of the studies mentioned are so new they haven't been replicated, plus they are more complex and interconnected than Brooks lets on. There is no resulting new big idea. It can't stand on its own as fiction, and the science studies start to seem self-selected, without enough critical review.

All of which is too bad, as it was a promising concept. But somewhere between the conceptual framework and the smooth prose, there is something missing. I can certainly recommend as a first introduction, but for anyone who has read Freakanomics or Malcolm Gladwell or the many recent books on how humans make decisions, this book is not going to sustain your interest for 350 pages. I hope you find this review useful.

JHC this guy is a TF moron. He apparently sourced his book from napkins he scribbled on at cocktail parties. He's also employs a massively condescending tone.

If you are uninformed this book will misinform.

If you are informed it will infuriate.

The only thing it does well is mock the rich and pretentious types, just like him. On the other hand, if you too are a moron that appreciates condescension, then I heartily recommend.

David Brooks may come to regret writing this self-revealing book because it has the capacity to threaten his reputation as a respected public intellectual. Those of us who follow his columns in the New York Times and his Friday appearances on the PBS News Hour have the right to expect better than this. The first objection is that Mr. Brooks has no facility for writing fiction. The book is in the form of a novel reminiscent of Rousseau's "Emile." But Brooks is no Rousseau. He gives us two undeveloped characters, Erica and Harold, and endows them with characteristics and lives which are supposed to illustrate Brooks' notion of the difference between their conscious and unconscious lives with the kudos going to the unconscious. Unfortunately Brooks' concepts of the differences between the conscious and the unconscious are often fuzzy and sometimes incoherent. The greater fault in the book lies in the author's astonishing credulity in citing bogus and unreproducible studies in psychological and sociological research. These underpin his conclusions and consequent recommendations for public policy.

People who read books of this type used to be called "existentialist." If you like David Brooks' book but want a little more depth about why people often do what they do, read "Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection" by John T. Caciopppo. He is as neuroscientist at the University of Chicago and the book was published in 2008. His style is for the layman even though technical labels are widely used.

I got so excited halfway through "Loneliness" I downloaded free ebooks on my Kindle by Charles Darwin to get to some original sources, e.g. "The Voyage of the Beagle." I will read David's book but his conservative and dogmatic point of view is often a turnoff but I will read with an open mind.

I found it impossible to get past the misogyny and thorough unawareness of the priviledged bias in the narrative voice. The author assumes an insufferable degree of authority that he fails to earn with this book.

Why read a book by a journalist with a degree in history about psychology? he just doesn't know enough about it. Say enough things and you will be right about some. He has a chapter about decision making but I didn't see any reference to Gary Klein's excellent works, although he uses some of his ideas.

In his book, _The Social Animal_, David Brooks takes a tour through modern research into the workings of the human mind using the vehicle of storybook characters. Through their fictional life stories, he delves into a dazzling array of research topics, generally under the subject headings of consciousness, mental processing, unconscious awareness, and social interactions. The research he cites is fascinating and quite possibly would have made an excellent straight-forward book on pop science. In fact, were he a trustworthy source, he could have made his chosen format work just fine and I think I would have enjoyed it a great deal. Alas, he is not.

Right from the forward, it becomes clear that Brooks has some controversial ideas about life. I'm not familiar with his editorial work so this book is my only source of information about his views (so far). I suspect he wouldn't be favorite columnist but if the book were simply intended and formatted to relate his opinions, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I read and enjoy books by authors I disagree with, to some extent or another, all the time. But getting agenda mixed into a book that's intended to review science is problematic: understanding the import of research properly requires the author relate the context and results of the research fairly and completely. The meaning of a given study can easily be shaded one way or another, or studies not in agreement with an author's view can be ignored while those convenient to his ends can be highlighted. I'm pretty sure Brooks does; the only issue is, how much skew is present and how badly does the result misrepresent?

Among Brooks' agendas are the ideas that human interrelationships are absolutely key factors in how well a life is lived (it's hard to understate how strongly he seems to believe this), success outcomes in life are all about hard work and not about innate ability at all (he states this so strongly at one point, he basically contradicted points he made in other parts of the book), and that unconscious processing is a far more important factor in our lives than we suspect. This last point is the only one that gives the book any merit or makes it interesting at all.

Towards the end of the book, he completely abandons his original format of citing research and just ventures off into pure opinion, expressed through his characters. It turns out the Mr. Brooks is a flaming communitarian. And like many communitarians, his disdain for individual rights and freedoms (they always get in the way of the social engineering communitarians are bent on doing) knows no bounds. He needs no rational reasons for mowing them down relentlessly; he only needs a place. I was particularly amused by his insistence that all contemporary liberal AND conservative political thought nowadays centers on advocating whichever sorts of individual freedoms are popular with that side of the aisle. I'm not sure Mr. Brooks lives in the same political world I do.

Be that as it may, the takeaway is this: a worthwhile tour of scientific research requires an author one can trust to give an honest rendering. Mr. Brooks is not the man to do it. The front cover should be a yellow diamond-shaped road sign warning: "DANGER! BIAS AHEAD!"

This is one of the best books I have ever read. I wanted to learn more about the early start of life (the months before the birth) and Mr. Brooks does a fabulous job of explaining it in a manner understandable by laymen.

He is one of the most articulate writers/speakers I have ever read or watched on TV. He is a knowegeable thinker not touched by political dogma and always subject to reason.

As an individual believing in Success By Six, I now know it is really success by 6 years and 8 months. This is a book that every man and women should read thre day they learn about prgnanacy; then read again when pregnant again.

David Brooks' latest book is titled The Social Animal. As with his earlier works, he explores what researchers have learned in a field and what that may mean for how we live with one another in society. The area of attention in this book is the mind, and the extent to which emotions, perceptions, intuitions and our unconscious direct our actions. Brooks concludes that we are social animals, and why we do what we do is the result of what's happening in our brains on a level underneath the rational. He supports his premise with a potpourri of illustrations. The device he uses to explore the topic is the creation of two characters, Harold and Erica, and through their lives, he riffs on how reason takes second place in how they follow life's pathways. Brooks' writing is always entertaining and often witty. Whether one agrees with his premise or not does not distract from the pleasure of reading even this book whose structure seems less logical and rational than his others, perhaps another illustration of his premise.

Rating: Three-star (Recommended)

There's nothing so wrong with this book as far as narrative goes, but its misrepresentation of science is unforgivable. For example, Brooks writes " "Once you get past some pretty obvious correlations (smart people make better mathematicians), there is a very loose relationship between IQ and life outcomes." He cites no primary sources to back this up.

It's fine for Brooks to believe what he likes -- that good, God-fearin' Real Murkins are the real winners in everything that matters -- but he ought not present it as science. A half-fictional, quasi-journalistic narrative in support of this beliefs is fine. Putting a pseudo-scientific veneer on his own more or less superstitious beliefs about human nature is truly awful, and he should have thought twice before doing this.

That said, parts of the book are amusing and well-written. The sexual aspects -- buying condoms by the carton, extended scatological would be wit, etc. -- are distasteful, but without them and the grotesque caricature of science he Brooks presents, this is a lively, readable book. It's a shame, all in all, that this isn't more tasteful and less intellectually reprehensible, given its charms.

The Social Animal is a comprehensive exploration of individual development. Renowned NY Times writer David Brooks explores the relationship between the conscious and unconscious mind couched in the fictional narrative of the lives of Harold and Erica. Brooks delves into the impacts that families, communities, and relationships have on personal development and success. Discussions cover the full aspect of a person’s life: the attractions that draw people together and how they respond to parenthood; the impacts and lessons of school, sports, and studies; career ambitions, successes, and failures; adult relationships, self-discovery, aging, and preparation for death. The narrative is interspersed with overviews of a variety of scientific studies that provide a firm foundation for the conclusions that Brooks reaches about the limitations of technical knowledge and the importance of connections with others.

Through these academic highlights, this book provides an informal introduction to diverse topics such as depth psychology, sociology, and anthropology. As such, The Social Animal is highly recommended to those interested in self-understanding. Parents and others who work with young children will also benefit from a revised understanding of the nature versus nurture debate and the fallacy of logic and reason as sole wisdom sources.

Review also posted at windlullaby.com

'The Social Animal' might be the best book to be published in the last ten years. Drawing from all corners of physiological, psychological, and theological fields, David Brooks has weaved together a narrative that reveals the human character in a way like no other work out there. The material in this book is at times fascinating, insightful, engaging, and hilarious; at times it is also contradictory and plain wrong, but, even then, it can be readily accepted as fodder for discussion and debate.

The first thing the reader will note is the book's unique style. It is at its core a survey of contemporary scientific findings in the vein of Malcolm Gladwell, Dan Ariely, Daniel Gilbert, and others. But in order to fully grasp these findings, Brooks invents a genre by framing his survey around the fictitious Harold and Erica, whom the reader follows from conception to death and through their life lessons in between. This technique allows Brooks to offer a more cohesive study and gives the reader a more relevant picture of the scientific findings for an altogether more powerful treatise.

Along the way, we learn about the psychological processes behind attraction, mating, and reproduction; mental map-making, bonding, and familial relationships; imagination, learning, peer pressure, ambition, competition, status, institutionalism, achievement, limerence (social accord), métis (diversity in background), self-control, decision making, behavioral economics, politics, morality, and mortality. The composite is a portrait of the human character par excellence.

But it would be a mistake to think of this grand thought experiment as a novel. Because of its format, it is limited where novels can excel, where, for example, novels include rich descriptions of places and relationships, 'The Social Animal' is constrained to limited descriptions relevant to the study. Anyone expecting novel-like storytelling will sense something is missing when we don't hear about Harold's parents after the first quarter of the story, or that nothing much is made of the fact that Harold and Erica choose not to have kids themselves. These fit the scientific purpose of the work, but not the humanistic.

A more significant contention lies in Brooks' thesis. As could be expected from a psychological study, Brooks offers analysis of the scientific findings and presents a theory that encapsulates his view. This theory can be summed up by the notion that we are social animals and that our thoughts and institutions should be shaped to reflect that. In order to make this claim, Brooks examines three dichotomies: that between the individual and the social, the rational and irrational, and conscious and unconscious thinking, which don't necessarily mesh as well as they should.

To begin, Brooks doesn't distinguish between the three dichotomies and so the reader is led to assume that conscious thought is necessarily rational thought and therefore individualistic. Then, when Brooks claims that the vast majority of our thought is actually subconscious, the inference is made that we are largely irrational beings which thrive only in social settings.

While the three dichotomies are certainly related, the connection goes too far. For example, it is not clear to me that all conscious thought is rational or that all unconscious thought is irrational (Brooks even admits that unconscious thought is so sophisticated as to present the conscious mind with direction that is more rational than could be consciously conjured). Nor is it clear that the social realm provides men with any more harmony than the individualistic. Some social activities (sex, dinner with friends) do provide us with pleasure; but it cannot be said that the things that make us unhappy (daily commute) are any less social in nature just because they are not the kind of interaction one might prefer. Ultimately, the thesis underscores an undeniable fact--that we are social animals--but it does not provide definitive evidence of where this `socialism' comes from, whether it's necessary, or even desirable.

In the end, 'The Social Animal' calls for discussion, debate, and possibly a lengthy rebuttal in like manner. And, if that is all that the reader gets from this book, it should stand as one of the great works of its kind.