Heather:<\/p>\n
I must say, I think you were a bit unkind to David Brooks there. I speak as someone with mixed feelings about Brooks, who, when he departs from what he’s really good at — observational sociology — usually fails to impress. See me on Brooks here<\/a>, for example.<\/p>\n I think Brooks has grasped that what’s going on in the human sciences is hugely important, probably revolutionary, and he wants to write and talk about it; but he doesn’t want to step over any of the bright lines drawn around these topics by the politically correct intellectual establishment. He doesn’t want to be Larry Summersed<\/a> or James Watsoned<\/a>. In my opinion, the straddle he’s attempting is impossible & his venture into the human sciences will end with a wipe-out, but we’ll see.<\/p>\n In any case I’m glad to have a prominent general-interest columnist talking about human nature studies. Who knows? — perhaps he’ll find some way to bring the topic of human biodiversity into the domain of respectable discourse. That would be a step towards sane policies on, for example, immigration and education. But this is probably too much to hope for.<\/p>\n It’s nice that he’s discovered David Hume, though. (The original one, not our own learned list member.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Heather: I must say, I think you were a bit unkind to David Brooks there. I speak as someone with mixed feelings about Brooks, who, when he departs from what he’s really good at — observational sociology — usually fails to impress. … Continue reading