Arthur C. Brooks
"Who Really Cares" by Arthur C. Brooks.
This book is not serious. It's a classic case of a disengenuous author arriving at conclusions and fudging 'data' to conform to those conclusions. Throw this one on the pile along with Moore's F911, and countless other partisan culture war consumables, an effort to make money more than anything else.
There were a handful of articles in the papers when the book came out, where a lot was made about Brooks' background. He grew up in a Liberal household. He really didn't want to believe the data he was uncovering while he was working on the book. Etc. This is all an effort to persuade rather than convince.
Has anyone looked at Brooks' website? It's a joke. Just look at this page, entitled "statistics."
Half of the page isn't, in fact, "statistics," there are bold-faced conclusions, followed by explanations by Brooks, with no supporting evidence. If I did this at my job, in a meeting, or what-have-you, I'd get asked why or how. If I couldn't back up my statements, I'd get laughed out of the room and sent back to the drawing board. This "statistics" page is telling, and it is indicative of the way Brooks has put this project together. Brooks knows that in this soundbyte media culture we have, one can simply say whatever one wants to and it will be repeated elsewhere. If you spoonfeed conclusions people will want to believe, they'll even ask for it for Christmas.
Take this for example. "Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households." Conservative how? When? Liberal how? What constitutes a charity? I suspect that if Brooks were more specific, his conclusions (I hesitate to say "argument" when I haven't been presented with one) would be far less compelling.
My problem with the book is that the conclusions Brooks reaches are big leaps from what the actual data suggests. The only general conclusion Brooks could really state with any confidence is that religious people are more generous than non-religious people. And, get this, he used to say that, but, *gasp*, it wouldn't sell. We haven't heard about him until now. Now he's repackaged his effort like a good culture warrior, and before long, this book will be on the NYT best seller list, and all over Fox Opinion Channel, if it isn't already.
Why is Brooks pitting secular Liberals against religous Conservatives? In order to make money. "Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did."
Yep, it sure has generated discussion. And here we are, once again trying to talk some sense into the usual suspects.
This book is not serious. It's a classic case of a disengenuous author arriving at conclusions and fudging 'data' to conform to those conclusions. Throw this one on the pile along with Moore's F911, and countless other partisan culture war consumables, an effort to make money more than anything else.
There were a handful of articles in the papers when the book came out, where a lot was made about Brooks' background. He grew up in a Liberal household. He really didn't want to believe the data he was uncovering while he was working on the book. Etc. This is all an effort to persuade rather than convince.
Has anyone looked at Brooks' website? It's a joke. Just look at this page, entitled "statistics."
Half of the page isn't, in fact, "statistics," there are bold-faced conclusions, followed by explanations by Brooks, with no supporting evidence. If I did this at my job, in a meeting, or what-have-you, I'd get asked why or how. If I couldn't back up my statements, I'd get laughed out of the room and sent back to the drawing board. This "statistics" page is telling, and it is indicative of the way Brooks has put this project together. Brooks knows that in this soundbyte media culture we have, one can simply say whatever one wants to and it will be repeated elsewhere. If you spoonfeed conclusions people will want to believe, they'll even ask for it for Christmas.
Take this for example. "Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households." Conservative how? When? Liberal how? What constitutes a charity? I suspect that if Brooks were more specific, his conclusions (I hesitate to say "argument" when I haven't been presented with one) would be far less compelling.
My problem with the book is that the conclusions Brooks reaches are big leaps from what the actual data suggests. The only general conclusion Brooks could really state with any confidence is that religious people are more generous than non-religious people. And, get this, he used to say that, but, *gasp*, it wouldn't sell. We haven't heard about him until now. Now he's repackaged his effort like a good culture warrior, and before long, this book will be on the NYT best seller list, and all over Fox Opinion Channel, if it isn't already.
Why is Brooks pitting secular Liberals against religous Conservatives? In order to make money. "Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did."
Yep, it sure has generated discussion. And here we are, once again trying to talk some sense into the usual suspects.
Labels: Culture War
posted by Martin Lane at
12:04 PM
ADD ME ON FACEBOOK
4 Comments:
Why is Brooks pitting secular Liberals against religous Conservatives? In order to make money.
Hey, it's working for Richard Dawkins.
By
All Nations Christian Reformed Church, at 12:20 PM
There are many enlightened religious folks out there, meaning liberals. Many are my friends, they volunteer many hours a week and have stated that fellow volunteers like themselves, card carrying democrats. They rarely find fundy "Christians" involved in Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Buffet is a moderate/liberal democrat as is Mr.Gates. I grew up in a republican home. They only gave to the church and boy did them skim.
By
Anonymous, at 11:28 AM
You really did just briefly scan this book didn't you?
"Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households." - The surveyed defined themselves as being very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, or very conservative in their political ideology.
"Why is Brooks pitting secular Liberals against religous Conservatives? In order to make money."
- He pitted four groups against each other with religious conservatives being the most charitable group and secular conservatives being the least. The reason secular liberals and religious conservatives were so often spoken of in relation to each other was because these are the larger groups. Liberals are overwhelmingly secular while conservatives are overwhelmingly religious.
I found the book to be a great read and intended to be surprising to liberals but not so much to conservatives. The reason none of his works were successes and why this one created only a marginal stir is because he's preaching to the choir (pun intended). Liberals won't acknowledge these academic and completely unbiased findings when it destroys their entire basis for moral high ground in political debate.
By
M. Cain, at 2:28 AM
Thanks for visiting, and thanks for commenting.
Of course I skimmed the book. It wasn't worth my time to thoroughly read it. Nevertheless, I made a number of observations about the book that were true, that you didn't bother to respond to, or attempt to refute. The issue isn't what I am or what others are, or what I did or didn't do. The issue here is Brooks' inability to form sound conclusions using empirical data. You should be aware that you are comfortable throwing around these very general labels, just as Brooks has been. What is meant by Liberal or Conservative? How are they Liberal or Conservative? Does it matter to you or to Brooks that most people are neither?
How are the findings unbiased when Brooks has admitted that he altered his conclusions in order to please an editor? How can overly generalized partial truths "destroy" anything?
By
Martin Lane, at 8:25 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home