David Brooks is a very smart columnist at the New York Times. However, the quality of his analysis is very hit or miss.
Sometimes it's brilliant (for example his recognition of the importance of Dr. Richard Ogle's Smart World), and sometimes it's ridiculous. And this book has flashes of both brilliance and stupidity.
Brooks describes himself as being originally a liberal before "coming to my senses." He encouraged and supported the attack on Iraq, and stated that "I still believe that in 20 years, no one will doubt that Bush did the right thing." In 2006 he wrote a column for The New York Times titled "Party No. 3", in which he proposed the idea of the McCain-Lieberman Party, which he considers the "moderate majority" in America (!).
Turning to Brooks' new work, the Social Animal, its greatest strength is that he is very up-to-date on who's who in cutting-edge neuroscience and the social sciences, and the book offers a wealth of footnotes for those who want to explore further the fascinating findings he touches upon.
The central theme of this book is the power of the unconscious mind:
"We are living in the middle of a revolution in consciousness. Over the past few years, geneticists, neuroscientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists, anthropologists, and others have made great strides in understanding the building blocks of human flourishing. And a core finding of their work is that we are not primarily the products of our conscious thinking. We are primarily the products of thinking that happens below the level of awareness... The conscious mind merely confabulates stories that try to make sense of what the unconscious mind is doing of its own accord... John Bargh of Yale argues that just as Galileo removed the earth from its privileged position at the center of the universe, so this intellectual revolution removes the conscious mind from its privileged place at the center of human behavior."
"As we go about our day, we are bombarded with millions of stimuli - a buzzing, blooming confusion of sounds, sights, smells, and motions. And yet amidst all this pyrotechnic chaos, different parts of the brain and body interact to form an Emotional Positioning System. It coats each person, place or circumstance with an emotion and an implied reaction that helps us navigate our days... Eventually at the end of all these complex feedbacks, a desire bursts into consciousness - a desire to choose that cereal or seek that job, or to squeeze the hand, to touch this person, to be with this person forever. The emotion emerges from the deep."
"Reason and emotion are not separated and opposed. Reason is nestled upon emotion and dependent upon it. Emotion assigns value to things, and reason can only make choices on the basis of those valuations. The mind is a blindingly complicated series of parallel processes. There is no captain in a cockpit making decisions."
Despite this fascinating science, Brooks has the unfortunate habit shared by many Americans of suddenly leaping from science to superstition: "If the outer mind hungers for status, the inner mind hungers for the love of another or the love of God"; "the information that comes from deep in the evolutionary past we call genetics. The information revealed thousands of years ago we call religion." Note how Brooks segues from science to superstition from one sentence to the next. Genetics is information is from the evolutionary past, while religion is "information revealed" thousands of years ago.
Dr. Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Dr. Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell), and indeed the overwhelming majority of scientists will point out that religious "information" was not revealed, but rather invented, just as Tooth Fairy "information" and Easter Bunny "information" were.
But even more irritating than the superstitions, is Brooks decision to take excellent science and wrap it in an embarrassingly insipid story about "a composite American couple, Harold and Erica, how they grow, push forward, fail, and succeed." These cartoonish characters are littered throughout the book alongside solid scientific findings, as if they somehow added to the science, when in fact all they do is demonstrate that Brooks own unconscious mind has been seriously impaired by Harlequin romance-like gibberish.
So unfortunately The Social Animal cannot be recommended. Nonetheless the scientists to whom Brooks refers are very worthwhile - Dr. John Bargh, Dr. Joseph Ledoux, Dr. Antonio Damasio, etc. So photocopy the index if you get a hold of a copy, and read the real deal scientists, rather than this book.