David Brooks is a voice in the wilderness within a profession prone to reflexiveness and little self-reflection. No mere journalist, he has earned his place in that "comradeship of letters," to cite Woodrow Wilson, "which is a very real [and venerable] comradeship because it is a comradeship of thought and principle." Brooks raises the level of discourse on matters that happen to be in the public consciousness. But he is at his best when raising the public consciousness on matters people do not think about--such as consciousness, or our utter lack of it. Brooks' fascinating piece on human nature, understanding and interactions appears in The New Yorker, and you can read it here.
Following is one of Brooks' premises--which hopefully will be a continuing literary theme of his:
"Intelligence, academic performance, and prestigious schools don't correlate well with fulfillment, or even with outstanding accomplishment. The traits that do make a difference are poorly understood, and can't be taught in a classroom, no matter what the tuition: the ability to understand and inspire people; to read situations and discern the underlying patterns; to build trusting relationships; to recognize and correct one's shortcomings; to imagine alternate futures. In short, these achievers have a sense that they are shallower than they need to be."
No comments:
Post a Comment