OK, so I posted earlier in this entry about David Brooks’ column in a recent New York Times. I am now modifying my post (is that acceptable blog ethics?) based on other opinions on blogs I’ve read. I am a big believer that political polarization is becoming more an issue not less of one. It probably was then that that fact plus my overall liking of David Brooks that I blindly accepted and cheered this column. Indeed, Jeff Jarvis in this blog made some good points about the flaws in Brooks’ argument. Check it out. But what is confusing is that Jarvis chides Brooks on his “arm-chair sociologizing” but then similarly tries to extrapolate his personal example of being a democrat in a republican county into national fact. Jarvis goes on to cite another blog which includes a point that Brooks exaggerated the size of the “information economy” and that it’s a stretch to say people can go wherever they want. Sure it’s perhaps a bit hyperbole but the fact is he’s citing a trend, not a fact applicable to every single instance (so a “but look my neighborhood is diverse in political viewpoints” doesn’t mean that’s a national trend). In any case, you learn something every day…thanks to those who likewise blogged about this column.
Get Infrequent Email Updates
- @Beezer232 @aweissman Recent examples?, 8 hours ago
- RT @gibsonbiddle: Woah! Something I aspire to as a writer, coach and teacher, from Christensen’s obituary: “Clay created a way of thi… https://t.co/Pb5IDtFpWH, Jan 24
- @fredsters_s Can you expand on the logic of why a portfolio company CEO intro is higher signal than intro from an existing investor?, Jan 24
Subscribe to BlogGet posts sent to you by email when they're published.