Supplemental: David Brooks seems to have gotten it wrong!

TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2015

Salon tackles one of the smart guys:
David Brooks has long been cast as one of the press corps’ bright guys.

He writes two columns per week for the New York Times, a famous newspaper whose political work is constantly taken for smart.

Beyond that, Brooks participates in the weekly political roundups on two of our brightest discussion programs—NPR’s All Things Considered and the PBS NewsHour.

Plainly, the establishment press sees David Brooks as one of the press corps’ smart guys. That’s why David Zweig’s recent report for Salon is so instructive.

For reasons he explains in his piece, Zweig decided to fact-check one of the central claims in Brooks’ new book, The Road to Character. This is the passage in question, as originally published:
BROOKS (2015, page 6): In 1950, the Gallup Organization asked high school seniors if they considered themselves to be a very important person. At that point, 12 percent said yes. The same question was asked in 2005, and this time it wasn’t 12 percent who considered themselves very important, it was 80 percent.
Those kids today! Surely, we all can see the general drift of Brooks’ claim. Those Kids Today in The Me Generation no longer have any humility! The way their parents and grandparents did!

Unfortunately, Zweig had seen Brooks making the same general claim in the past, while citing a significantly different second date. In his 2011 book, The Social Animal, Brooks’ claim took this form:
BROOKS (2011, page 181): In 1950 a personality test asked teenagers if they considered themselves an important person. Twelve percent said yes. By the late 1980s, 80 percent said yes.
In that version of the story, These Kids Today had gone to the dogs “by the late 1980s.” Other facts also seemed different.

Zweig decided to fact-check the claim from Brooks’ current book. Making a long story short:
1) The Gallup Organization had nothing to do with these data.
2) The second set of data were collected in 1989, not in 2005.
3) The two sets of data came from difference sources, not from any one polling organization.
4) The data involved high school freshmen, not seniors.
As Zweig notes, every error in the new book tends to enhance the shock value of Brooks’ central point. Making matters worse, Zweig reports a deeply significant complaint from the researchers who compiled the 1989 data:
ZWEIG (6/15/15): In addition to his factual errors, it’s worth noting that Newsom and Archer challenge Brooks’ interpretation of their paper. Newsom explained to me that “I am an important person” was one question in a subset of questions related to “Ego inflation.” Interestingly, though this one question had a huge jump, ostensibly supporting the case of less humility over time, in fact, the overall subset that this question was a part of—Ego Inflation—had a relatively small increase from the first data set to the second. It’s generally not sound to spotlight one question in isolation, especially if it contrasts with the findings of the overall study or subset.
This suggests a possibility: Brooks may have cherry-picked a single question which indicated a decline in the humility of Those Kids Today, even though a group of related questions suggested a substantially different result.

David Brooks is supposed to be one of the smart ones. We’re discussing an important early passage in a ballyhooed new book. It isn’t a mistaken offhand comment.

How the heck did David Brooks make so many accidental mistakes? Why did all his mistakes tilt the scales in a certain direction?

People! We’ve been talking about this sort of thing for almost twenty years now. As we’ve often noted, facts play almost no role in our discourse. It’s narrative all the way down!

Assuming the accuracy of Zweig’s account, the cherry-picking of the one question is the most serious bit of misdirection here. Throwing Gallup into the mix makes the whole thing sound especially authoritative. Adjusting the date from 1989 to 2005 makes it seem like this is a recent crisis concerning These Kids Today.

This is what the smart ones do, when they’re writing major books! We’re only surprised that Zweig seems surprised by this apparent conduct.

People! Our own descriptions of these kinds of gong-shows date, let’s say, to the Lincoln Bedroom pseudo-scandal (1996). At that time, the Washington Post and the New York Times toyed with the basic numbers in several ways to make You Know Who look corrupt.

Again and again and again and again, the New York Times does horrible work, but it’s mistakenly taken for smart. Brooks is supposed to be one of the smartest in the whole bunch!

Do all the journalists toy with their facts? Zweig’s piece is well worth reading. Predictably, it seems to have occasioned zero reaction.

11 comments:

  1. Get used to it. So called conservatives are congenital lying bastards,
    Brooks is a prominent example.

    LG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tribal! That's not allowed! Unless of course Bob and both Bobfans are clamoring for a tribal defense of Hillary.

      Delete
    2. Saying What We're All ThinkingJune 17, 2015 at 12:31 PM

      There's been no clamor for "tribal defense" of Hillary Clinton, except in the minds of comprehension-challenged commenters like Anonymous of 8:46.

      Delete
    3. Clueless ClintoniteJune 17, 2015 at 2:07 PM

      I've got no problem with that, "Saying What...."

      Delete
  2. cicero's blowup dollJune 16, 2015 at 7:18 PM

    Bobo get something wrong? He must've talked to the wrong cabbie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair to Brooks, Tom Friedman is the (imaginary) cab drivers best friend..
      Make shit up and say I heard it thru the Grapevine.
      No longer will you be mine.

      LG

      Delete
  3. For anyone inside the Beltway, this would be considered nitpicking.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am here to give testimony of how i got back my husband, we got married for over 9 years and we had two kids. thing were going well with us and we where always happy. until one day my husband started to behave in a way i could not understand, i was very confused by the way he treated me and the kids. later that month he did not come back home again and he called me that he want a divorce, i asked him what have i done wrong to deserve this from him, all he was saying is that he want a divorce that he hate me and do not want to see me again in his life, i was mad and also frustrated do not know what to do,i was sick for more than 2 weeks because of the divorce. i love him so much he was everything to me without him my life is incomplete. i told my sister and she told me to contact a spell caster, i never believe in all this spell casting of a thing. i just want to try if something will come out of it. i contacted traditional spell hospital for the return of my husband to me, they told me that my husband have been taken by another woman, that she cast a spell on him that is why he hate me and also want us to divorce. then they told me that they have to cast a spell on him that will make him return to me and the kids, they casted the spell and after 1 week my husband called me and he told me that i should forgive him, he started to apologize on phone and said that he still live me that he did not know what happen to him that he left me. it was the spell that he casted on him that make him come back to me. my family and i are now happy again. Thank you Dr. Aluta for what you have done for me i would have been nothing today if not for your great spell. i want you my friends who are passing through all this kind of love problem of getting back their husband, wife , or ex boyfriend and girlfriend to contact traditionalspellhospital@gmail.com and you will see that your problem will be solved without any delay. He cast spells for different purposes like
    (1) If you want your ex back.
    (2) if you always have bad dreams.
    (3) You want to be promoted in your office.
    (4) You want women/men to run after you.
    (5) If you want a child.
    (6) You want to be rich.
    (7) You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever.
    (8) If you need financial assistance.
    (9) Herbal care
    (10) is the only answer to that your problem of winning the lottery
    Contact him today on: traditionalspellhospital@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wonder what David Zweig would find if he looked for the 1970 newspaper article which is reported to have appeared in the Nashville Tennessean in which a journalist covering the book tour for Erich Segal's Love Story is said to have claimed Segal said the characters were based on Al and Tipper Gore.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It seems to me that Brooks represents continuity at the NYT--not some particularly smart writer. He was brought in to replace Safire and it seems their policy agendas are similar: hawkish foreign policy, conservative domestic economic policy, and a few crumbs of libertarian social policy to make them palatable to NYT subscribers.

    Did anyone other than William Buckley (or apparently Gail Collins) think Brooks was smart when he was writing for the National Review or Weekly Standard?

    ReplyDelete