
Mr. Brooks is all tied up in knots. Rational analysis is not, he claims, how we make moral judgments. That was a mistake by Socrates that’s been copied ever since, like a gene for color-blindness. Our moral judgments are intuitive, emotive. They follow what feels good and rationalize it; they don’t precede or dictate it. (Which sounds heretically close to the supposed DFH mantra of, "If it feels good, do it.")
Rest easy, Republican Base, Mr. Brooks seems to say. The Rush of emotions you’re feeling are naturally selected, inheritable responses to your environment. You needn’t worry that they are tendencies that need dampening in light of conflicting moral claims that ought to override "bestial" ones, or those inherited from fundamentally different circumstances, but which cling to our psyche like Oedipal rage. That’s the premise of Mr. Brooks’ directionless exploration of the controversial discipline called evolutionary psychology, in an essay with the understated title of, The End of Philosophy.
A good argument, like a well-designed knot is easy to tie (with practice) and holds fast. Unlike a good argument, a good knot is easily undone when it’s work is finished. They both come in all shapes and sizes, and are used for many different purposes, from slipping easily to holding fast. A badly turned knot, like a poor argument, binds when it shouldn’t, slips when it should bind, and can’t be undone without the patience of Job. Bobo’s analysis is a badly tied knot that distracts rather than enlightens. He often comes up with similar "thought" pieces when the Beltway is abuzz with bad news for Republicans.
This week, it could be the ICRC documenting the Bush administration’s torture, no doubt of interest to Spanish prosecutors. It could be that Obama escalated troops deployed in Afghanistan by more than 9000 and we heard about it inadvertently. Or, that the EFCA legislation went down thanks to a desperate Arlen Specter, hoping to leave the Senate feet first rather than on a rail, and thanks to the Walton family’s pet, Senator Lincoln from Arkansas. It could also be that Hawkeye Iowa’s allowing gay marriage makes it more liberal than California (or that Mormons don’t know where it is), or that banks continue to engorge themselves on taxpayers’ money like drunken defense contractors.
Evolutionary psychology could be interesting, but Mr. Brooks uses it as a MacGuffin. With our attention focused on multi-syllabic jargon, Bobo makes three nice claims that reward and strengthen the Base. (Nice in the sense of "comfortable or convenient", not the more academic "fine distinction". In fact, Bobo jumbles concepts and makes contradictory arguments with a freshman’s abandon.) Evolutionary psychology, Bobo says,
emphasizes the social nature of moral intuitions;
entails a warmer view of human nature; and
explains the haphazard way most of us lead our lives without destroying dignity and choice.
In short, we have evolved psychologically not just to compete, but to cooperate and to stand fast in the face of our foes:
Like bees, humans have long lived or died based on their ability to divide labor, help each other and stand together in the face of common threats. Many of our moral emotions and intuitions reflect that history. We don’t just care about our individual rights, or even the rights of other individuals. We also care about loyalty, respect, traditions, religions. We are all the descendents [sic] of successful cooperators.
That must make obstructionist Rump Republicans rare surviving Neanderthals. They clearly descend from ancestors in whom “successful cooperation” was not an inheritable trait.



14 Comments







He also claimed that the new evolutionary psychology gives little comfort to the rational atheists! I would suggest that he try and convince Richard Dawkins and Robert Wright on that point! In fact, Bobo almost went as far as to say “it really doesn’t matter if your argument is rational…people will still not listen to it.” When these scientists point out that people are attracted to religious belief systems because it has been adaptive in transmitting the memes-genes in the past, that “confession” doesn’t mean that rational problem solving becomes irrelevant.
Bobo also ignores the fact that Philosophers ARE incorporating Evolutionary principles in their models, and are involved in heady discussions as to whether the “naturalistic fallacy” still holds.
One issue that should be of great interest to Bobo, if he dares look into it relates to the issues of deception – the manipulation of evolutionary impulses by creating environments where actions are actually maladaptive to the actor but beneficial to those that “framed” the environment. The current economic crisis may be the result of just such manipulation…and Bobo might have to do some deep introspection about his role in that. Similarly, the Iraq War.
Will Brook dare to admit that he was manipulated- that he was acting in accord with his social station and background…the facts be damned? Or will he continue to claim that his was a “rational argument” based on the facts we knew at the time? Or did he “know” and see self-interest?
Furthermore, can events or environments exist that can manipulate the organism in such a way that new patterns of behavioral interaction be produced that is actually beneficial to the society at large. It’s interesting that much of the large scale social manipulation that exists uses familial terms (brother, sister, father, mother) or “camps” in which such “pseudo-attachments” are simulated. This is used by both soldiers but also religious sects.
Biologist PZ Myers wrote a wonderful rebuttal of this Brooks column today:
Well worth a read.
Good take down by PZ Myers. He catches Brooks in several of his illogical arguments and glittering generalities, his slams against atheists and the rational. Brooks needs those because his Republicans aren’t as he describes them. They have nothing left but to say “No”, which gives them no standing as rational decision makers.
As Prof. Myers underscores, Brooks skips a topic that he and the late Stephen Jay Gould wrote much about. Among our genetic inheritance are tendencies previously selected for by virtue of their temporary adaptedness. Brooks uses that idea as a good Social Darwinist might, as an excuse for ruthless greed or to persuade the Base that what they feel must be right because they feel it.
In fact, as the only species claiming moral values, which Republicans trumpet like peacock feathers, humans have an obligation to temper their tendencies to promote group welfare.
Bobo claims we already do that, as if a handful of tax deductible donations were a substitute for adequate educational funding. He ignores that while we have a large proportion of “cooperatives” in our species, we have of late been allowing predators to reproduce at an alarming rate, with insufficient inhibitors to restrain their anti-social behavior.
Imposing and enforcing moral restraints is as valid a job for government (an expression of our collective selves) as it is for religion or other group associations. Mr. Brooks would argue, like Bush, that restraints should be voluntary, which voids their power, his desired end. It’s another way of saying leave the powerful alone.
Mr. Brooks is an apologist for the cuckoo, trying to convince the poor host mother that the hatchling that tossed out its step siblings, and which is nearly half her size and growing, is really her pride and joy and that she should be honored to exhaust herself feeding it.
Commentator LeBronathon on Prof. Myers website captured Brooks well. After praising PZ’s critique of Brooks, LeBronathon says:
(Emph. added.)
I agree with everything in that quote except the part you emphasized. Brooks is there to balance the reality we see in the rest of the paper. That suits his bosses and at least some of the people they need to placate or co-opt. These days, the only surprise is when a newspaper doesn’t have someone like him as a columnist.
Wow, thanks for the PZ Myers site. Excellent rebuttal. I wonder if he is related to Isabel Myers of the Myers/Briggs Type Indicator. Myers took Jung and made him very accessible. Freud is sooo last century. Jung was really on to something with his dissection of how different people think, well, differently. Some gather information in detail, others gather in patterns. Some make judgments based on how it will effect others. Some make judgments based on logic and reason. If they mature or what Jung calls go through the process of individuation, they learn how to use their least preferred ways of gathering and then deciding i.e. they try to get in other people’s shoes.
So Brooks is just sadly off base and, as always, very middle brow.
Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of Bobo? My guess is that he’s intellectual curious and sometimes artful in his wordplay, but that those skills are subservient to his job: selling the Meme-of-the-Day his political masters put forth. He’s never really left his editorial post on the Op-Ed page of the Wall Street Journal.
Rather than argue for his conservative values in open debate, he resorts to grand subjects and titles (”The End of Philosophy”), that lack credibility. He suggests that the current batch of Republicans in power are “conservative” when they are deeply radical and contemptuous of representative government. He describes rapacious greed in words of cooperation and the dictates of nature. He disguises his biases as arguments about the universal. He’s not writing for thinkers; he’s writing for skimmers who need a quick reaffirmation of their truths.
My hypothesis is that Brooks is a very good propagandist for the GOP and Money. He twists everything into that mold in his columns. One way or another
The labor has been divided into the leaders and followers. You, dear reader, are not a leader, are you now? So, you should follow evolutionary wisdom, and morality, and follow our (Money?) Leaders.
Unless of course it concerns following individual and social suicide by following GOP and centrist Big Money Democratic crony capitalism. Then of course, we should adhere to the tradition of rugged individualism of his fantasy history of the U.S. (Added in edit: the real reationale, never opnely considered by Brooks is that contemporary U.S. crony capitalism disguises itself with the propaganda of rugged individualistic free market capitalism).
Doesn’t make any difference whether any of it fits together. Brooks writes Fractured Fairytales, only predictable thing is the Moral at the end. Sometimes the bad faith just reaches out and slaps you.
I think Fractured Fairy Tales is about right.
MEH, Ashland, OR, wrote one of the most recommended comments on Brooks’ column. An excerpt:
(Emph. added.)
I’m afraid I agree. Brooks is on the Op-Ed pages of the Times for his own purposes, including making an investment banker’s salary. The Times chose him out of a sense of “balance”, but one that has been distorted out of all recognition. He’s there to cover their backsides with the Karl Roves and now, Rahm Emanuels and Rush Limbaughs as much as he is to give readers a legitimate counterpoint to a liberal perspective.
Part of the Times’ imbalance is that it publishes precious few “liberal” voices. Krugman is one, but he’s more “old time” centrist than liberal. He’s a tenured professor in economics at an Ivy League university, a multi-million dollar wage earner. He’s “liberal” in the sense that not all his work promotes the exclusive interests of Wall Street. Ditto such voices as Elizabeth Warren, whom the Times does not give a regular gig.
Someone should tell Brooks that his title is oddly like that of another conservatives’. Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History”.
So now we have conservatives declaring both the end of history and the end of philosophy. Mayb e they’ll soon realize that those fields of endeavor will thrive long after the End of the Republican Party.
Since before my self-published book, successful at selling 1000 copies in 1980-1, which explored all these points at greater length, I have preferred to use the formula “the creation and distribution of explanations” as the definition of the social science of “philosophy/science/religion.” As I pointed out 30 years ago, there can be scientists who think and act from faith, and spiritualists who try to carefully study the finer points of cause and effect.
Pulling out my latest attempt at a re-writing from ‘06 the relevant point goes “Philosophy, science and religion are the three most common types of explanations in our human history, the list could be continued with “ideology” in fourth place, and “culture” in fifth place, “mythology” in sixth place and so on.”
I am preparing to let loose the whole set of re-definitions of social science, which has served me very well for several decades. I think I found the list of requirements for Oxdown diaries when I looked for it a few months ago, but I forget, is there an upper limit on size? I could cut it all way back, but I like to get all the considerations and caveats and subtleties out there, it takes at least ten thousand words to get my system of the philosophy of history and human behavior out the way I like it … look for a nice long piece from me sometime soon.
My system of the social sciences builds from a theory of history that celebrates and embraces the (impossible) goal of fully recording every human beings’ every thought and action. Even though we all have our our individual truths which can never be totally reconciled, even if all our thoughts and justifications and actions could conceivably be recorded and analyzed, we can and we must still make the attempt to build a positive social reality with a science of explanations that speaks to the intelligent majority of humanity.
one suggestion would be to break it down into a series of posts – that is what many people do with their diaries when dealing with complex topics.