6 ms·

I think you're reading too much into Brooks' ideology from that singular article and that singular excerpt. Based on my experience with other works from him and

by tkahn6 16y ago

I think you're reading too much into Brooks' ideology from that singular article and that singular excerpt. Based on my experience with other works from him and from listening to him speak on PBS news, it's disingenuous to lump him in with the "conservative right". He is anything but anti-intellectual. That said, his position is not that "plain talkin' people who struggle with math and science" should be lauded but that social skills are not skills that can be learned through formal education. His point is that group dynamics, being able to read people and lead people, is a very subtle art that is learned throughout childhood and adolescence and Chua denied her children the opportunities to learn these skills by refusing them sleepovers and plays and such.

kenjackson 16y ago
He's certainly part of the conservative right. He's no Michelle Malkin, but he's considered the NYTimes right-wing opinion columnist. His point is actually slightly different than what you are saying, and this subtlety is important. Because while Brooks is on the right, is one of their more astute thinkers. Brooks is actually saying that formal education is easy. Not intellectually challenging, and largely a playground. Lets take some quotes: "I believe she’s coddling her children. She’s protecting them from the most intellectually demanding activities because she doesn’t understand what’s cognitively difficult and what isn’t." "these and other social tests impose cognitive demands that blow away any intense tutoring session or a class at Yale. " "Chua would do better to see the classroom as a cognitive break from the truly arduous tests of childhood" He's not simply saying that there exist other skills that aren't taught in the classroom and that these ar also important and difficult. He's saying something much stronger. He's saying the things that people like Chua value (math, science, arts, literacy, etc...) are the easy things -- the things not to be valued. They're the things you do when your child needs a break or to be coddled. These are the things of intellectual lightweights. The hard cognitive work is the stuff you see at the corner store in Smalltown USA. These people don't have college degrees, PhDs, Fields Medals, but they can do the actual intellectual demanding activities, not the stuff "you coddle your children" with.
- tkahn6 16y ago
  > He's saying the things that people like Chua value (math, science, arts, literacy, etc...) are the easy things -- the things not to be valued. Again, he is not saying this and you are also leaving out the quote at the end which is: "I wish she recognized that in some important ways the school cafeteria is more intellectually demanding than the library." Emphasis mine. Please read this article from him and then come back here. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/opinion/10brooks.html?ref=davidbrooks http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/opinion/10brooks.html?ref=...
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    First, read the article yourself. You appeared to have missed the 700 words that preceeded that sentence. And even that sentence you quote is completely ambiguous. Is he arguing that they're equally demanding? Or that the important ways that matter the school cafeteria is more demanding than the library or vice-versa? You can't tell from that one sentence. But if you read the whole article you can tell what he actually believes. Read the quotes I have from above that are NOT ambiguous. He clearly states that the library is LESS intellectually demanding. No ambiguity, no qualifier. Read the article in full then come back here.
    - tkahn6 16y ago
      If you would read the link I posted above, your misconceptions about his agenda would be cleared up.
      - kenjackson 16y ago
        His agenda is already clear. That article you sent certainly makes it no less clear. Although, I do find the below deliciously ironic: Finally, there’s the lower class. The problem here is social breakdown. Something like a quarter to a third of American children are living with one or no parents, in chaotic neighborhoods with failing schools. Many of these children have navigated the most treacherous of social environments. Abuse at home, gangs in the neighborhood, and no teaching at school. You'd think they'd be the intellectual highlights of our country. They're not, because everyone really knows that this is not sufficient, nor effective. This article by Brooks is really saying two things, and is largely unrelated to his later article: 1) The free market doesn't work. People should forego higher paying jobs and do jobs that better help the country. Almost like a large-scale self-imposed socialism. 2) Businesses can't be bothered to train people that don't have college degrees. There are millions of people in the inner city that have the social skills, but not the book smarts or degrees. Brooks's should put his money where his mouth is and implore businesses to swoop into Watts and hire the available talent. He won't though, because he doesn't actually believe that this is where the intellectual horsepower is. He thinks its at Harvard and MIT, but he'd like you to believe its in Smalltown USA.
barry-cotter 16y ago
his position is [...] that social skills are not skills that can be learned through formal education. How would we know? I am not aware of any mass formal education system, state supported or otherwise, that makes more than a very token nod in this direction. The closest analogue I'm aware of is social skills training for people with autism spectrum disorders. I know that works if the participants apply the theory outside the classroom, I've seen it. Hell, it even helps a little if you don't, because your modelling skills get better once you have some idea what's going on.
- sedachv 16y ago
  A lot of what etiquette schools teach is exactly that. So are most "job training" programs in the US ("don't smell bad, don't insult your interviewers, etc." - it's really a big joke; I recommend Lafer's The Job Training Charade if you want to understand what's going to happen to the US work force and economy in the next 20 years). Your example of skills training for autism is probably the best. There's also the self-help and pick-up/dating coach industries. Every single corporate team-building workshop. Basically all of psychology. Social skills can certainly be taught through formal education (and programmed into robots, too). They do need to be practiced also, but claiming they're not like other kinds of information is the same baseless anthropocentrism argument the conservatives keep pulling out to deny that people weren't like apes, evolution didn't happen, god exists etc. etc.

by tkahn6 16y ago

kenjackson 16y ago

He's certainly part of the conservative right. He's no Michelle Malkin, but he's considered the NYTimes right-wing opinion columnist. His point is actually slightly different than what you are saying, and this subtlety is important. Because while Brooks is on the right, is one of their more astute thinkers. Brooks is actually saying that formal education is easy. Not intellectually challenging, and largely a playground. Lets take some quotes: "I believe she’s coddling her children. She’s protecting them from the most intellectually demanding activities because she doesn’t understand what’s cognitively difficult and what isn’t." "these and other social tests impose cognitive demands that blow away any intense tutoring session or a class at Yale. " "Chua would do better to see the classroom as a cognitive break from the truly arduous tests of childhood" He's not simply saying that there exist other skills that aren't taught in the classroom and that these ar also important and difficult. He's saying something much stronger. He's saying the things that people like Chua value (math, science, arts, literacy, etc...) are the easy things -- the things not to be valued. They're the things you do when your child needs a break or to be coddled. These are the things of intellectual lightweights. The hard cognitive work is the stuff you see at the corner store in Smalltown USA. These people don't have college degrees, PhDs, Fields Medals, but they can do the actual intellectual demanding activities, not the stuff "you coddle your children" with.

tkahn6 16y ago
> He's saying the things that people like Chua value (math, science, arts, literacy, etc...) are the easy things -- the things not to be valued. Again, he is not saying this and you are also leaving out the quote at the end which is: "I wish she recognized that in some important ways the school cafeteria is more intellectually demanding than the library." Emphasis mine. Please read this article from him and then come back here. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/opinion/10brooks.html?ref=davidbrooks http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/opinion/10brooks.html?ref=...
- kenjackson 16y ago
  First, read the article yourself. You appeared to have missed the 700 words that preceeded that sentence. And even that sentence you quote is completely ambiguous. Is he arguing that they're equally demanding? Or that the important ways that matter the school cafeteria is more demanding than the library or vice-versa? You can't tell from that one sentence. But if you read the whole article you can tell what he actually believes. Read the quotes I have from above that are NOT ambiguous. He clearly states that the library is LESS intellectually demanding. No ambiguity, no qualifier. Read the article in full then come back here.
  - tkahn6 16y ago
    If you would read the link I posted above, your misconceptions about his agenda would be cleared up.
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      His agenda is already clear. That article you sent certainly makes it no less clear. Although, I do find the below deliciously ironic: Finally, there’s the lower class. The problem here is social breakdown. Something like a quarter to a third of American children are living with one or no parents, in chaotic neighborhoods with failing schools. Many of these children have navigated the most treacherous of social environments. Abuse at home, gangs in the neighborhood, and no teaching at school. You'd think they'd be the intellectual highlights of our country. They're not, because everyone really knows that this is not sufficient, nor effective. This article by Brooks is really saying two things, and is largely unrelated to his later article: 1) The free market doesn't work. People should forego higher paying jobs and do jobs that better help the country. Almost like a large-scale self-imposed socialism. 2) Businesses can't be bothered to train people that don't have college degrees. There are millions of people in the inner city that have the social skills, but not the book smarts or degrees. Brooks's should put his money where his mouth is and implore businesses to swoop into Watts and hire the available talent. He won't though, because he doesn't actually believe that this is where the intellectual horsepower is. He thinks its at Harvard and MIT, but he'd like you to believe its in Smalltown USA.

barry-cotter 16y ago

his position is [...] that social skills are not skills that can be learned through formal education. How would we know? I am not aware of any mass formal education system, state supported or otherwise, that makes more than a very token nod in this direction. The closest analogue I'm aware of is social skills training for people with autism spectrum disorders. I know that works if the participants apply the theory outside the classroom, I've seen it. Hell, it even helps a little if you don't, because your modelling skills get better once you have some idea what's going on.

sedachv 16y ago
A lot of what etiquette schools teach is exactly that. So are most "job training" programs in the US ("don't smell bad, don't insult your interviewers, etc." - it's really a big joke; I recommend Lafer's The Job Training Charade if you want to understand what's going to happen to the US work force and economy in the next 20 years). Your example of skills training for autism is probably the best. There's also the self-help and pick-up/dating coach industries. Every single corporate team-building workshop. Basically all of psychology. Social skills can certainly be taught through formal education (and programmed into robots, too). They do need to be practiced also, but claiming they're not like other kinds of information is the same baseless anthropocentrism argument the conservatives keep pulling out to deny that people weren't like apes, evolution didn't happen, god exists etc. etc.