What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Know a Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen
A practical, heartfelt guide to the art of truly knowing another person in order to foster deeper connections at home, at work, and throughout our lives—from the #1 New York Times bestselling author of The Road to Character and The Second Mountain
As David Brooks observes, “There is one skill that lies at the heart of any healthy person, family, school, community organization, or the ability to see someone else deeply and make them feel seen—to accurately know another person, to let them feel valued, heard, and understood.”
And yet we humans don’t do this well. All around us are people who feel invisible, unseen, misunderstood. In How to Know a Person, Brooks sets out to help us do better, posing questions that are essential for all of If you want to know a person, what kind of attention should you cast on them? What kind of conversations should you have? What parts of a person’s story should you pay attention to?
Driven by his trademark sense of curiosity and his determination to grow as a person, Brooks draws from the fields of psychology and neuroscience and from the worlds of theater, philosophy, history, and education to present a welcoming, hopeful, integrated approach to human connection. How to Know a Person helps readers become more understanding and considerate toward others, and to find the joy that comes from being seen. Along the way it offers a possible remedy for a society that is riven by fragmentation, hostility, and misperception.
The act of seeing another person, Brooks argues, is profoundly How can we look somebody in the eye and see something large in them, and in turn, see something larger in ourselves? How to Know a Person is for anyone searching for connection, and yearning to be understood.
As David Brooks observes, “There is one skill that lies at the heart of any healthy person, family, school, community organization, or the ability to see someone else deeply and make them feel seen—to accurately know another person, to let them feel valued, heard, and understood.”
And yet we humans don’t do this well. All around us are people who feel invisible, unseen, misunderstood. In How to Know a Person, Brooks sets out to help us do better, posing questions that are essential for all of If you want to know a person, what kind of attention should you cast on them? What kind of conversations should you have? What parts of a person’s story should you pay attention to?
Driven by his trademark sense of curiosity and his determination to grow as a person, Brooks draws from the fields of psychology and neuroscience and from the worlds of theater, philosophy, history, and education to present a welcoming, hopeful, integrated approach to human connection. How to Know a Person helps readers become more understanding and considerate toward others, and to find the joy that comes from being seen. Along the way it offers a possible remedy for a society that is riven by fragmentation, hostility, and misperception.
The act of seeing another person, Brooks argues, is profoundly How can we look somebody in the eye and see something large in them, and in turn, see something larger in ourselves? How to Know a Person is for anyone searching for connection, and yearning to be understood.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published October 24, 2023
About the author
David Brooks
24 books1,781 followersDavid Brooks is a political and cultural commentator. He is currently a columnist for The New York Times and a commentator on PBS NewsHour. He has previously worked for Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, Newsweek, The Atlantic Monthly and National Public Radio.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,192 reviews
November 19, 2023
I have a confession: I love psychology, but I can't stand self-help or pop psychology books. Invariably, they fall into one of two traps: "no, duh," or "that makes a lot of sense ... in theory ... but I have no freaking clue how to put that into practice." While the premise of such books is usually interesting, in practice, I usually end up bored.
How to Know a Person is a rare psychology/self-help-esque book that falls into neither of these categories. It is both a reminder of what it means to be human, as well as highly practical in how to be better and connect more fully with others. Some parts of the book inspire deeper thought; others give concrete takeaways that you can try to put into practice right away, without feeling preachy or inauthentic.
Brooks mentions himself that the book is probably more appropriately subtitled, "The Art of Hearing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Heard" (presumably, the publisher nixed this!). That is really what the book is about. It's about listening to others. We cannot see people for who they are if we do not listen. Most people hunger to be understood and long for deep connections ... and, on the flip side, just as many people are not that great at understanding and appreciating others deeply or behaving in a manner that would forge the kind of connections they crave. Deep connections come from understanding, and understanding comes from authentically and deeply listening to others. As it turns out, part of being a good listener is asking good questions.
Some thoughts / takeaways from the book ... (I guess this isn't so much of a "review" as it is a long laundry list of reflections / musings as a result of reading the book...)
Most people really suck at asking questions!
This was a revelation for me when I started dating. I've battled with social anxiety my entire life, and a recurrent fear for a long time was that I was a boring conversationalist. Then I started dating, and I realized: I may not be Barack Obama, but I'm not as bad as I think! Many people don't ask any questions. Most were perfectly nice people, too, with interesting answers! But they asked vanishingly few (sometimes zero) questions. I never enjoyed those conversations. The other person usually did, blithely unaware they had told me tons about themselves and learned nothing about me. To them, it was a great conversation.
Being a good conversationalist isn't about having the wittiest story or knowing tons of facts. That's called being a good entertainer. People feel like they've had a good conversation when the other person has invited them to contribute and is genuinely interested in what they have to say.
The best questions aren't what, but how and why.
But not all questions are created equal. You can fill a conversation with what questions, sure. It's not hard. But it probably won't be the most satisfying exchange. It's likely two things will happen: 1) you will know a lot of facts about a person, like where they live or what they do for work, yet nothing about them, and 2) you will keep having to resuscitate the conversation with a change of topics or additional questions. When you get at how and why someone thinks or does a certain thing, you express interest in them (vs. meaningless small talk), and you learn so much more about them. Which do you think would be a more interesting conversation: "Where do you live?" or "Why do you live where you do?" I live in Hell's Kitchen. I live in Hell's Kitchen because it's close to Central Park; in addition to loving to run, I found out through living in the grey, stony Financial District that I really love having trees around. They make me happy. One answer tells you a lot more about me than the other.
I am going to make more of a conscious effort to ask how / why going forward to elicit people's life stories. Less what questions!
Resist the temptation to relate things back to you.
Ooh, I'm guilty of this one. I want to make people feel heard, so if I know what their experience is like, I will try to prove I know how they feel by talking about how I've been there too. This is a dangerous trap, because it shifts the attention away from the speaker and over to you. It also blinds you in a sense to what the person is saying; maybe you have been through that situation too, but when you start talking about yourself, it's hard not to extrapolate how you felt onto the other person. Maybe that's true and they feel the exact same way, but they may very well not! You deprive them of the space to explain for themselves, might inadvertently tell them how you think they're feeling, and make the conversation about you.
I think I talk about myself in such situations because I want someone else to not feel alone and that I get it. But when I think about it--when I was depressed, was it actually helpful knowing somebody else was depressed too? Not really. It just felt like we were two people in the same shitty sinking boat together, and now I felt bad that they felt like shit too. There are times when knowing someone is or has been in the same boat as you is helpful ... but it's rarely at the exact moment you're trying to tell your story.
It's probably not necessary to self-disclose at all to make someone feel heard. If you know how it feels, for instance, to lose a family member, you can support the other person with the thoughtful probing questions you ask, ones that are indirectly informed by your own experience. Your prior experience can help you figure out the right questions to ask or the things to say. I've been thinking about this in relation to someone I knew with social anxiety, in fact. Initially, I tried to relate (boy, do I know social anxiety!), but then I realized, that is not what that person needs; they probably don't care that I, too, have social anxiety. I will not cure them by countering their cognitive distortions with logic, or by telling them what helped me. I will only help them by providing real evidence they are not dislikable by being there for them and offering friendship.
The way to support someone through depression or other hard life events isn't to fix, but to be there and care unconditionally.
This is related to the above bullet. Brooks compassionately describes his friend's slide into deep depression and his eventual suicide. Brooks initially wanted to fix his friend. He told him about the things he could do to feel better; he countered his friend's negative thoughts, assuring him life wasn't really that way. It didn't help, and Brooks felt helpless. Eventually, however, Brooks realized: he was doing it all wrong. His friend wasn't a dummy; he wasn't doing the things that Brooks thought would make him better, because he had tried it, and it didn't help. If it was that easy, his friend would have done it. All Brooks had done was make his friend feel like he just didn't get it. Brooks was not going to be able to fix his friend. All he needed to do was simply be there for him.
This is so utterly true, speaking from experience. "You will feel less depressed if you just get out / move around / do blah blah blah." Argh!! What people don't understand is that, yes, when you are just down in the regular dumps, getting out of the house can make you feel better. When you are clinically depressed, however, you cannot feel pleasure. You can leave the house and show up to an event, and you will not enjoy it. You will feel just as horrible at home as you did out and about. Actually, you might even feel even worse socializing, because not only do you still feel horrible, you can't even put on a happy face, and other people can tell. Then you start beating yourself up for being a drag on the event or other people. When people tell you, "You just need to X," they are proving, yes, they don't get it. They don't understand it doesn't actually help ... and their advice also just implies you're just not trying hard enough. Not doing the right things. No one depressed wants to feel unhappy. That is already a thought going through their head--they're a burden on everyone else, and they're just not trying hard enough to be better.
No one can cure depression with a pep talk. It just doesn't work that way. Depressed people already believe no one wants to be around them and that they are a drain on others; telling someone it's not true is just words. If you want to support someone with depression, simply be there for them, nonjudgmentally. Actions speak so much louder than words.
People react to the same event differently.
This was beautifully illustrated by two French families' experience in the 2004 Indonesian tsunami. A couple's young daughter was swept away, and in the aftermath, the French vacationers reacted very differently to the same catastrophic event. Emmanuel Carrère felt frozen, useless, unable to help; his girlfriend sprung into action, coordinating and helping as she could; the girl's mother was destroyed; the girl's father strove to keep levity and support his crumbling wife. The same event, the same circumstance, will shape different people dramatically. Don't ever assume how you react or perceive an event is the same as someone else.
David Brooks isn't some kind of master People Person.
They say the best sports coaches usually weren't star athletes in their prime. In fact, the best athletes are often not very good at teaching their sport at all! When you are naturally good at something, it can be a struggle to effectively teach others, because, well, you didn't think about how you did a given technique ... you just did it. It was easy, because you're a natural. In order to learn a complicated or advanced thing, people who aren't naturally gifted have to study and break down the technique into smaller steps ... ones naturals never even think about.
David Brooks is no different. He freely admits, repeatedly, in the book that he is not some kind of natural wunderkind at forging deeper connections. He poignantly illustrates this by recounting how in his early twenties, he couldn't understand why a crush chose another man over him--after all, Brooks thought, he was the better writer! He was totally oblivious to the idea that that wasn't an impressive thing at all, especially not in the context of a fulfilling relationship. Listening deeply is a skill Brooks has developed over time, and he still swings and misses all the time. I relate to that; I am not a natural either, but I certainly think I can (and have become) better over time practicing listening to people. "Just ask questions! People love to talk about themselves!" is advice I've been given many times in my life, but no one ever really explained what that meant.
Big Five personality tests.
This section did not make me think. This is actually a criticism of the book. Unlike MBTI, the Big Five is very well researched and widely accepted in the psychology field. However, Brooks' explanation of the traits was horrible! One of the things that makes the Big Five so valid as a personality measurement is that each of the dimensions are wholly independent of one another. You could be an extraverted neurotic, or an open-minded but disagreeable person... or the reverse, or any combination thereof. However, Brooks presented the traits as if they were the opposite of one another. Extraverts, he claims, feel more positive emotions; neurotics are more likely to feel negative ones. A layman might think with that explanation, ah, extraversion is negatively correlated with neuroticism. No, they're actually completely independent of one another. Neuroticism is a tendency towards worry and anxiety, and a degree of emotional lability. Extraversion is about sensation seeking and deriving enjoyment from socialization and the world around you, as opposed to focusing inward with less stimulation. An extravert can be highly neurotic and prone to worry, and an introvert may be mellow. Or not!
Anyone who reads this book and was not familiar with the Big Five already should look up the Big Five separately online, because Brooks simply did not do the explanation justice.
Wisdom isn't being able to tell someone what to do; it's helping someone figure out what they should do.
I loooooove giving advice. If someone mentions they're struggling with a thing, my reflexive response is to think about how I would solve the situation, or what I think they should do.
This is not good, and it's something I am actively trying to stop myself from doing.
Firstly, most of the time, people are not looking for advice. If they are, they will say so. If they don't say so, then they probably just want space to talk and to be heard. Jumping in with solutions short-circuits that entirely.
Secondly, as Brook notes, tactical advice isn't actually as helpful or useful as asking questions that help clarify what the person should do, and, critically, why. It allows the person to come to the right decision with confidence. Being told you should do X, without the personal understanding of why X is the right answer, just lands differently than deciding to do X because someone asked you, "What draws you to X? What would you gain if you did Y instead? What's really important to you?" and you realizing, you know what, X is the right choice because of blah blah blah. You end up feeling good about your choice, that it was informed. And it's a gift that keeps giving! You learn about yourself being asked open-ended questions, and, maybe, the next time you are faced with a similar dilemma, you know enough about yourself to know what to do, or at least what things to consider.
Give a man a fish and he'll be fed for a day; teach a man to fish, and he'll be fed for life.
I also love the idea of wisdom being asking questions vs. advice because the former feels so much more open-ended. If I give you advice, I have an opinion on what you should do. Maybe I have a bit of an agenda. It's me implying I know you better than you know yourself. If I ask you an open-ended question of what's important to you, I allow you to come to your own conclusion, without me encouraging you to do one thing or another. It feels more altruistic and person-centered.
A personal anecdote of wisdom != advice: I was very unhappy on a team at work several years ago. Another team offered me a role doing something else. I was split; I hated the work I was currently doing and desperately wanted out, but I wasn't sold on the new team, either. I hemmed and hawed, unsure what to do. Finally, someone told me, "I'm not going to tell you what you should do one way or the other. The one thing I want you to consider is as you weigh the job offer is: are you running away from something, or running towards something? If you're running towards something, go for it; if you are running away, you should find something to run towards." I thought about that. I was not running towards the job offer. I wasn't excited about it. I was only entertaining the job offer because I was so unhappy on my current team. I was running away. I didn't accept the job offer.
When I asked that person for advice, I wanted them to tell me what I should do. But, realistically, I wouldn't have actually been satisfied with a simple "you should do X", because I wouldn't have resolved the doubt in my mind. Only by posing that wise question did I realize what I should do. I have thought about that question for years since. Am I weighing this option because I'm running away from something else, or am I running towards it? It was probably one of the wisest things someone has ever said to me.
While the events in our lives don't change, our perception of them and the roles they play in our self-story change over time. Our self-stories are constantly changing.
You will never really know yourself fully, and people close to you in life will always learn more things about you, no matter how long you have known each other. This is one of the things that makes people so fascinating!
Although stuff I wrote in high school and college and onward can sometimes make me cringe, I also treasure it. I sometimes forget, oh, yeah, this thing used to be really important to me, and this was a huge part of who I was. Or I realize, that event that I didn't think had that big of an impact on me back then, was in fact actually seminal in my current self-conception.
Our life events don't change, but our interpretation of them can vary so drastically, we can have many different versions of ourselves over the years. For many years, I rarely thought about high school, a thing I wished to simply forget; in the past year, an unrelated event triggered an outpouring of memory, and the realization of how profoundly one year of high school had impacted me hit me like a ton of bricks. It is now featured much more prominently in my self-story than it would have a year prior. My story is different, despite the past remaining static.
I think it would be an interesting thought exercise to take various events in your life and consider what you thought of them as they happened, a year later, five years later, decades later. How did their roles in your self-story change? What triggered that change? Why?
Telling people your story helps you create it; rarely do you have that story fully formed in your head.
Brooks notes most people have a narrative about themselves already, but, yet, it's often when people have to tell that story to someone else that they start to piece together additional details. It's not necessarily that they have all those pieces and insights prebaked and are just spitting out something canned. As people explain the narrative to someone else, they continue rewriting the story.
I think this is one of the things that makes therapy so helpful. You know your own head and life story deeply. You rarely have to explain a situation to yourself, or why you acted a certain way; you just know. When you have to explain that same thing to someone else, however, you have to give them additional context. In doing so, that exercise can force you to realize--oh, huh, you know what? As I'm saying this, I'm realizing that situation was pretty messed up, or that person didn't really mean to hurt me. Moreover, people can ask questions that challenge your narrative or put it into a different perspective.
Therapy isn't necessarily about getting advice or tools to manage distress. Sometimes it's simply articulating and narrating your experience to someone else in a novel way outside your own head, and having that narrative challenged.
How to Know a Person is a rare psychology/self-help-esque book that falls into neither of these categories. It is both a reminder of what it means to be human, as well as highly practical in how to be better and connect more fully with others. Some parts of the book inspire deeper thought; others give concrete takeaways that you can try to put into practice right away, without feeling preachy or inauthentic.
Brooks mentions himself that the book is probably more appropriately subtitled, "The Art of Hearing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Heard" (presumably, the publisher nixed this!). That is really what the book is about. It's about listening to others. We cannot see people for who they are if we do not listen. Most people hunger to be understood and long for deep connections ... and, on the flip side, just as many people are not that great at understanding and appreciating others deeply or behaving in a manner that would forge the kind of connections they crave. Deep connections come from understanding, and understanding comes from authentically and deeply listening to others. As it turns out, part of being a good listener is asking good questions.
Some thoughts / takeaways from the book ... (I guess this isn't so much of a "review" as it is a long laundry list of reflections / musings as a result of reading the book...)
Most people really suck at asking questions!
This was a revelation for me when I started dating. I've battled with social anxiety my entire life, and a recurrent fear for a long time was that I was a boring conversationalist. Then I started dating, and I realized: I may not be Barack Obama, but I'm not as bad as I think! Many people don't ask any questions. Most were perfectly nice people, too, with interesting answers! But they asked vanishingly few (sometimes zero) questions. I never enjoyed those conversations. The other person usually did, blithely unaware they had told me tons about themselves and learned nothing about me. To them, it was a great conversation.
Being a good conversationalist isn't about having the wittiest story or knowing tons of facts. That's called being a good entertainer. People feel like they've had a good conversation when the other person has invited them to contribute and is genuinely interested in what they have to say.
The best questions aren't what, but how and why.
But not all questions are created equal. You can fill a conversation with what questions, sure. It's not hard. But it probably won't be the most satisfying exchange. It's likely two things will happen: 1) you will know a lot of facts about a person, like where they live or what they do for work, yet nothing about them, and 2) you will keep having to resuscitate the conversation with a change of topics or additional questions. When you get at how and why someone thinks or does a certain thing, you express interest in them (vs. meaningless small talk), and you learn so much more about them. Which do you think would be a more interesting conversation: "Where do you live?" or "Why do you live where you do?" I live in Hell's Kitchen. I live in Hell's Kitchen because it's close to Central Park; in addition to loving to run, I found out through living in the grey, stony Financial District that I really love having trees around. They make me happy. One answer tells you a lot more about me than the other.
I am going to make more of a conscious effort to ask how / why going forward to elicit people's life stories. Less what questions!
Resist the temptation to relate things back to you.
Ooh, I'm guilty of this one. I want to make people feel heard, so if I know what their experience is like, I will try to prove I know how they feel by talking about how I've been there too. This is a dangerous trap, because it shifts the attention away from the speaker and over to you. It also blinds you in a sense to what the person is saying; maybe you have been through that situation too, but when you start talking about yourself, it's hard not to extrapolate how you felt onto the other person. Maybe that's true and they feel the exact same way, but they may very well not! You deprive them of the space to explain for themselves, might inadvertently tell them how you think they're feeling, and make the conversation about you.
I think I talk about myself in such situations because I want someone else to not feel alone and that I get it. But when I think about it--when I was depressed, was it actually helpful knowing somebody else was depressed too? Not really. It just felt like we were two people in the same shitty sinking boat together, and now I felt bad that they felt like shit too. There are times when knowing someone is or has been in the same boat as you is helpful ... but it's rarely at the exact moment you're trying to tell your story.
It's probably not necessary to self-disclose at all to make someone feel heard. If you know how it feels, for instance, to lose a family member, you can support the other person with the thoughtful probing questions you ask, ones that are indirectly informed by your own experience. Your prior experience can help you figure out the right questions to ask or the things to say. I've been thinking about this in relation to someone I knew with social anxiety, in fact. Initially, I tried to relate (boy, do I know social anxiety!), but then I realized, that is not what that person needs; they probably don't care that I, too, have social anxiety. I will not cure them by countering their cognitive distortions with logic, or by telling them what helped me. I will only help them by providing real evidence they are not dislikable by being there for them and offering friendship.
The way to support someone through depression or other hard life events isn't to fix, but to be there and care unconditionally.
This is related to the above bullet. Brooks compassionately describes his friend's slide into deep depression and his eventual suicide. Brooks initially wanted to fix his friend. He told him about the things he could do to feel better; he countered his friend's negative thoughts, assuring him life wasn't really that way. It didn't help, and Brooks felt helpless. Eventually, however, Brooks realized: he was doing it all wrong. His friend wasn't a dummy; he wasn't doing the things that Brooks thought would make him better, because he had tried it, and it didn't help. If it was that easy, his friend would have done it. All Brooks had done was make his friend feel like he just didn't get it. Brooks was not going to be able to fix his friend. All he needed to do was simply be there for him.
This is so utterly true, speaking from experience. "You will feel less depressed if you just get out / move around / do blah blah blah." Argh!! What people don't understand is that, yes, when you are just down in the regular dumps, getting out of the house can make you feel better. When you are clinically depressed, however, you cannot feel pleasure. You can leave the house and show up to an event, and you will not enjoy it. You will feel just as horrible at home as you did out and about. Actually, you might even feel even worse socializing, because not only do you still feel horrible, you can't even put on a happy face, and other people can tell. Then you start beating yourself up for being a drag on the event or other people. When people tell you, "You just need to X," they are proving, yes, they don't get it. They don't understand it doesn't actually help ... and their advice also just implies you're just not trying hard enough. Not doing the right things. No one depressed wants to feel unhappy. That is already a thought going through their head--they're a burden on everyone else, and they're just not trying hard enough to be better.
No one can cure depression with a pep talk. It just doesn't work that way. Depressed people already believe no one wants to be around them and that they are a drain on others; telling someone it's not true is just words. If you want to support someone with depression, simply be there for them, nonjudgmentally. Actions speak so much louder than words.
People react to the same event differently.
This was beautifully illustrated by two French families' experience in the 2004 Indonesian tsunami. A couple's young daughter was swept away, and in the aftermath, the French vacationers reacted very differently to the same catastrophic event. Emmanuel Carrère felt frozen, useless, unable to help; his girlfriend sprung into action, coordinating and helping as she could; the girl's mother was destroyed; the girl's father strove to keep levity and support his crumbling wife. The same event, the same circumstance, will shape different people dramatically. Don't ever assume how you react or perceive an event is the same as someone else.
David Brooks isn't some kind of master People Person.
They say the best sports coaches usually weren't star athletes in their prime. In fact, the best athletes are often not very good at teaching their sport at all! When you are naturally good at something, it can be a struggle to effectively teach others, because, well, you didn't think about how you did a given technique ... you just did it. It was easy, because you're a natural. In order to learn a complicated or advanced thing, people who aren't naturally gifted have to study and break down the technique into smaller steps ... ones naturals never even think about.
David Brooks is no different. He freely admits, repeatedly, in the book that he is not some kind of natural wunderkind at forging deeper connections. He poignantly illustrates this by recounting how in his early twenties, he couldn't understand why a crush chose another man over him--after all, Brooks thought, he was the better writer! He was totally oblivious to the idea that that wasn't an impressive thing at all, especially not in the context of a fulfilling relationship. Listening deeply is a skill Brooks has developed over time, and he still swings and misses all the time. I relate to that; I am not a natural either, but I certainly think I can (and have become) better over time practicing listening to people. "Just ask questions! People love to talk about themselves!" is advice I've been given many times in my life, but no one ever really explained what that meant.
Big Five personality tests.
This section did not make me think. This is actually a criticism of the book. Unlike MBTI, the Big Five is very well researched and widely accepted in the psychology field. However, Brooks' explanation of the traits was horrible! One of the things that makes the Big Five so valid as a personality measurement is that each of the dimensions are wholly independent of one another. You could be an extraverted neurotic, or an open-minded but disagreeable person... or the reverse, or any combination thereof. However, Brooks presented the traits as if they were the opposite of one another. Extraverts, he claims, feel more positive emotions; neurotics are more likely to feel negative ones. A layman might think with that explanation, ah, extraversion is negatively correlated with neuroticism. No, they're actually completely independent of one another. Neuroticism is a tendency towards worry and anxiety, and a degree of emotional lability. Extraversion is about sensation seeking and deriving enjoyment from socialization and the world around you, as opposed to focusing inward with less stimulation. An extravert can be highly neurotic and prone to worry, and an introvert may be mellow. Or not!
Anyone who reads this book and was not familiar with the Big Five already should look up the Big Five separately online, because Brooks simply did not do the explanation justice.
Wisdom isn't being able to tell someone what to do; it's helping someone figure out what they should do.
I loooooove giving advice. If someone mentions they're struggling with a thing, my reflexive response is to think about how I would solve the situation, or what I think they should do.
This is not good, and it's something I am actively trying to stop myself from doing.
Firstly, most of the time, people are not looking for advice. If they are, they will say so. If they don't say so, then they probably just want space to talk and to be heard. Jumping in with solutions short-circuits that entirely.
Secondly, as Brook notes, tactical advice isn't actually as helpful or useful as asking questions that help clarify what the person should do, and, critically, why. It allows the person to come to the right decision with confidence. Being told you should do X, without the personal understanding of why X is the right answer, just lands differently than deciding to do X because someone asked you, "What draws you to X? What would you gain if you did Y instead? What's really important to you?" and you realizing, you know what, X is the right choice because of blah blah blah. You end up feeling good about your choice, that it was informed. And it's a gift that keeps giving! You learn about yourself being asked open-ended questions, and, maybe, the next time you are faced with a similar dilemma, you know enough about yourself to know what to do, or at least what things to consider.
Give a man a fish and he'll be fed for a day; teach a man to fish, and he'll be fed for life.
I also love the idea of wisdom being asking questions vs. advice because the former feels so much more open-ended. If I give you advice, I have an opinion on what you should do. Maybe I have a bit of an agenda. It's me implying I know you better than you know yourself. If I ask you an open-ended question of what's important to you, I allow you to come to your own conclusion, without me encouraging you to do one thing or another. It feels more altruistic and person-centered.
A personal anecdote of wisdom != advice: I was very unhappy on a team at work several years ago. Another team offered me a role doing something else. I was split; I hated the work I was currently doing and desperately wanted out, but I wasn't sold on the new team, either. I hemmed and hawed, unsure what to do. Finally, someone told me, "I'm not going to tell you what you should do one way or the other. The one thing I want you to consider is as you weigh the job offer is: are you running away from something, or running towards something? If you're running towards something, go for it; if you are running away, you should find something to run towards." I thought about that. I was not running towards the job offer. I wasn't excited about it. I was only entertaining the job offer because I was so unhappy on my current team. I was running away. I didn't accept the job offer.
When I asked that person for advice, I wanted them to tell me what I should do. But, realistically, I wouldn't have actually been satisfied with a simple "you should do X", because I wouldn't have resolved the doubt in my mind. Only by posing that wise question did I realize what I should do. I have thought about that question for years since. Am I weighing this option because I'm running away from something else, or am I running towards it? It was probably one of the wisest things someone has ever said to me.
While the events in our lives don't change, our perception of them and the roles they play in our self-story change over time. Our self-stories are constantly changing.
You will never really know yourself fully, and people close to you in life will always learn more things about you, no matter how long you have known each other. This is one of the things that makes people so fascinating!
Although stuff I wrote in high school and college and onward can sometimes make me cringe, I also treasure it. I sometimes forget, oh, yeah, this thing used to be really important to me, and this was a huge part of who I was. Or I realize, that event that I didn't think had that big of an impact on me back then, was in fact actually seminal in my current self-conception.
Our life events don't change, but our interpretation of them can vary so drastically, we can have many different versions of ourselves over the years. For many years, I rarely thought about high school, a thing I wished to simply forget; in the past year, an unrelated event triggered an outpouring of memory, and the realization of how profoundly one year of high school had impacted me hit me like a ton of bricks. It is now featured much more prominently in my self-story than it would have a year prior. My story is different, despite the past remaining static.
I think it would be an interesting thought exercise to take various events in your life and consider what you thought of them as they happened, a year later, five years later, decades later. How did their roles in your self-story change? What triggered that change? Why?
Telling people your story helps you create it; rarely do you have that story fully formed in your head.
Brooks notes most people have a narrative about themselves already, but, yet, it's often when people have to tell that story to someone else that they start to piece together additional details. It's not necessarily that they have all those pieces and insights prebaked and are just spitting out something canned. As people explain the narrative to someone else, they continue rewriting the story.
I think this is one of the things that makes therapy so helpful. You know your own head and life story deeply. You rarely have to explain a situation to yourself, or why you acted a certain way; you just know. When you have to explain that same thing to someone else, however, you have to give them additional context. In doing so, that exercise can force you to realize--oh, huh, you know what? As I'm saying this, I'm realizing that situation was pretty messed up, or that person didn't really mean to hurt me. Moreover, people can ask questions that challenge your narrative or put it into a different perspective.
Therapy isn't necessarily about getting advice or tools to manage distress. Sometimes it's simply articulating and narrating your experience to someone else in a novel way outside your own head, and having that narrative challenged.
April 12, 2024
This topic is everything I want, and I devour books like these. However, I’m afraid these pages were drowning in theory and research (some of which was fascinating, most of it was pedantic). This author knows his stuff and his authenticity shines. I just wanted more inspiration and something less like required reading for a college class.
November 20, 2023
This is a lovely book from a lovely man about how to connect deeper to people in many different social settings from acquaintances to your spouse. I believe one of the greatest sources of political and social discord we have is that people are incapable of connecting with someone and any attempt to get to another better is a step in the right direction. During and after reading this book I found that I approached conversations different and wanted to engage with people not because I wanted myself to be heard but because I wanted to get to know another. I highly recommend this book, it is a balm for the modern problems we have.
January 1, 2024
There are a lot of strange generalizations and unreferenced assertions in this book. There are jibes at cosmetics: "people who have botox injections and can't furrow their brows are less able to perceive other people's worry because they can't physically react to it". There are facile over-simplifications: "the classical Greeks, at the source of Western culture, emphasized individual agency and competition....Early Confucianism, meanwhile, emphasized social harmony" (I'm not sure, with a PhD in classics, what that even means). It's almost unreadable—pontificating pronouncements interwoven with personal anecdotes, research from cognitive and developmental psychology, and recherché quotations drawn widely from biographers, novelists, essayists and theologians (from Simone Weil to Susan Sontag, Olga Tokarczuk to Toni Morrison, Iris Murdoch and John Stuart Mill, Vivian Gornick and Douglas Hofstadter—just to review the intimidating index). There's comparison of the Bronte sisters, a diagnosis of the personality profile of G.W Bush, and an exegesis of Good Will Hunting. It's a scattershot display of learnedness.
The thesis is hard to discern and the argument is slippery. Brooks believes that there is a moral crisis in America, that more and more people are becoming chronically lonely and have lost the ability to talk with and see others. But it's unclear what Brooks means when he says "seeing people" or what the exact solution should be. Sometimes, for Brooks, seeing a person means seeing them beyond their race and gender, sometimes it means asking personal questions to elicit their deepest truths ("if the next five years of your life were a chapter, what would you call it?"), sometimes it means reframing a person in a more positive light (he repeatedly mentions a teacher who could "see" her student by praising her "for thinking before speaking" rather than calling her quiet), sometimes it means just being "a little nicer and a little less mean". It's unclear throughout the book whether the root of the cause is introversion ("introspection is over-rated", he declares at one point, "the detached way of life is a withdrawal from life", he declares at another) or whether introspection is essential. In one chapter, he talks about the virtue of empathy and "emotional granularity", which, as he explains, is the ability to perceive and finely understand one's own emotions and project them reliably onto others—an act of introspection! Surprisingly, he never mentions social media, one of the most obvious technological game-changers that has transmogrified human relationships.
It's a contradictory book. He says that people from loving families tend to be more confident, less neurotic and better at conversation, but confusingly, he also argues that empathy, the cornerstone of seeing people, is only learned through personal suffering. In different chapters, childhood trauma is both the origin of social isolation and also the necessary precondition to human connection. Anger, he argues in one chapter, is "always in control, ratcheting up higher and higher, consuming the host", but in another chapter, he discusses an insecure woman who depends on the validation of others and "suppresses her moments of anger. Anger would be a declaration of that she has a self that is separate from the social context. So instead of feeling angry when she is affronted, she feels sad or wounded or incomplete". I get that life is complex—anger can sometimes be an obstacle to genuine intimacy but other times it can be an essential part of standing up for oneself and articulating self-worth, but the book never unravels these complexities. It is a potpourri of contradictory advice and sentimental platitudes. Boiled down, the recurring lesson is rather banal, just old-school manners: look people in the eyes, smile, offer a comforting shoulder, listen.
This book reminded me of an observation made by Charles Baxter: there is a deep connection between self-help books and writing books and that they are often located next to each other in the bookstore. On the one side, self-help books essentially teach their readers how to turn their own lives into a more redemptive and palatable story; they coach readers to tell the story of their life anew, to reframe their experiences as victims into more empowering stories as survivors and heroes, to re-plot grief and trauma as a chapter within a broader narrative of transformation and growth. On the other side, writing guides often encourage the reader to look into back into their memories and experiences and find a voice, story and lesson, turning the raw moments of their lives into a cohesive narrative. Self-help books and writing guides are two genres of books that often serve the same audience and instruct their readers in the same ethic of living. Perhaps a more interesting idea in David Brooks' How to Know a Person is this crucial power of story-telling. In the final chapter, Brooks recounts a dinner-party in which two novelists were discussing how they would typically begin writing novels, whether focusing on plot or on character. Neither, they answered. They say that they focus on relationships and their narratives develop out of how that relationship progresses or deteriorates. Conversely, "therapists are essentially story-editors", he declares. By listening to their patients and seeing their life story as a distance, counselors can offer perspective and help the patient see their life according to a different narrative. I liked this idea a lot more—emphasizing relationships and stories over individual identity. When Brooks goes to an example of someone who really sees people, he goes to Maupassant—because the virtue he admires is the writerly one of uniquely picturing a person in a story.
A noble but inconsistent book. Brooks is right: partisan discord has become the norm and real dialogue is a rarity. I found myself agreeing with his sentiments but not with his advice. Sometimes I got the feeling that Brooks was just jealous of people who are charismatic and felt shamed because Oprah called him "blocked".
The thesis is hard to discern and the argument is slippery. Brooks believes that there is a moral crisis in America, that more and more people are becoming chronically lonely and have lost the ability to talk with and see others. But it's unclear what Brooks means when he says "seeing people" or what the exact solution should be. Sometimes, for Brooks, seeing a person means seeing them beyond their race and gender, sometimes it means asking personal questions to elicit their deepest truths ("if the next five years of your life were a chapter, what would you call it?"), sometimes it means reframing a person in a more positive light (he repeatedly mentions a teacher who could "see" her student by praising her "for thinking before speaking" rather than calling her quiet), sometimes it means just being "a little nicer and a little less mean". It's unclear throughout the book whether the root of the cause is introversion ("introspection is over-rated", he declares at one point, "the detached way of life is a withdrawal from life", he declares at another) or whether introspection is essential. In one chapter, he talks about the virtue of empathy and "emotional granularity", which, as he explains, is the ability to perceive and finely understand one's own emotions and project them reliably onto others—an act of introspection! Surprisingly, he never mentions social media, one of the most obvious technological game-changers that has transmogrified human relationships.
It's a contradictory book. He says that people from loving families tend to be more confident, less neurotic and better at conversation, but confusingly, he also argues that empathy, the cornerstone of seeing people, is only learned through personal suffering. In different chapters, childhood trauma is both the origin of social isolation and also the necessary precondition to human connection. Anger, he argues in one chapter, is "always in control, ratcheting up higher and higher, consuming the host", but in another chapter, he discusses an insecure woman who depends on the validation of others and "suppresses her moments of anger. Anger would be a declaration of that she has a self that is separate from the social context. So instead of feeling angry when she is affronted, she feels sad or wounded or incomplete". I get that life is complex—anger can sometimes be an obstacle to genuine intimacy but other times it can be an essential part of standing up for oneself and articulating self-worth, but the book never unravels these complexities. It is a potpourri of contradictory advice and sentimental platitudes. Boiled down, the recurring lesson is rather banal, just old-school manners: look people in the eyes, smile, offer a comforting shoulder, listen.
This book reminded me of an observation made by Charles Baxter: there is a deep connection between self-help books and writing books and that they are often located next to each other in the bookstore. On the one side, self-help books essentially teach their readers how to turn their own lives into a more redemptive and palatable story; they coach readers to tell the story of their life anew, to reframe their experiences as victims into more empowering stories as survivors and heroes, to re-plot grief and trauma as a chapter within a broader narrative of transformation and growth. On the other side, writing guides often encourage the reader to look into back into their memories and experiences and find a voice, story and lesson, turning the raw moments of their lives into a cohesive narrative. Self-help books and writing guides are two genres of books that often serve the same audience and instruct their readers in the same ethic of living. Perhaps a more interesting idea in David Brooks' How to Know a Person is this crucial power of story-telling. In the final chapter, Brooks recounts a dinner-party in which two novelists were discussing how they would typically begin writing novels, whether focusing on plot or on character. Neither, they answered. They say that they focus on relationships and their narratives develop out of how that relationship progresses or deteriorates. Conversely, "therapists are essentially story-editors", he declares. By listening to their patients and seeing their life story as a distance, counselors can offer perspective and help the patient see their life according to a different narrative. I liked this idea a lot more—emphasizing relationships and stories over individual identity. When Brooks goes to an example of someone who really sees people, he goes to Maupassant—because the virtue he admires is the writerly one of uniquely picturing a person in a story.
A noble but inconsistent book. Brooks is right: partisan discord has become the norm and real dialogue is a rarity. I found myself agreeing with his sentiments but not with his advice. Sometimes I got the feeling that Brooks was just jealous of people who are charismatic and felt shamed because Oprah called him "blocked".
August 5, 2023
Thank you to Random House and NetGalley for providing an advance copy of this book in exchange for my honest review. The book will be published on October 24th, 2023.
David Brooks dives into a study of how to really “know” another person in this part academic, part how-to, deeply reflective book. Some parts really appeal to me — I like the funny, tongue-in-cheek, self deprecating style and the curating and restating of academic studies supporting his points. He has several ideas that I resonate with (I, too, was not born with copious social skills and had to work hard to learn the few I developed!), but many that I did not. Honestly, it reads as a journey of self-discovery with an implied (and sometimes boldly stated) assumption that his issues / goals / discoveries are relevant for everyone as in “everyone wants x” and “everyone needs y.” I don’t actually believe *anything* is true of everyone (except the fact that I assume we all have human DNA). Also, for my taste, he goes a little far in the (IMHO simplistic and kind of old news) “everyone just wants to be heard, valued, and understood,” and I think human interaction is a lot more complicated than that.
In any case, it *is* an interesting read, with plenty of tools to help each of us understand a little more about how *we* work and how *we* interact with others, so I think it is worth reading! An exceptional referenced bibliography featuring philosophers, psychologists, novelists, and poets across the ages.
David Brooks dives into a study of how to really “know” another person in this part academic, part how-to, deeply reflective book. Some parts really appeal to me — I like the funny, tongue-in-cheek, self deprecating style and the curating and restating of academic studies supporting his points. He has several ideas that I resonate with (I, too, was not born with copious social skills and had to work hard to learn the few I developed!), but many that I did not. Honestly, it reads as a journey of self-discovery with an implied (and sometimes boldly stated) assumption that his issues / goals / discoveries are relevant for everyone as in “everyone wants x” and “everyone needs y.” I don’t actually believe *anything* is true of everyone (except the fact that I assume we all have human DNA). Also, for my taste, he goes a little far in the (IMHO simplistic and kind of old news) “everyone just wants to be heard, valued, and understood,” and I think human interaction is a lot more complicated than that.
In any case, it *is* an interesting read, with plenty of tools to help each of us understand a little more about how *we* work and how *we* interact with others, so I think it is worth reading! An exceptional referenced bibliography featuring philosophers, psychologists, novelists, and poets across the ages.
February 3, 2024
Most conflicting review ever. What a wonderful book written by a self proclaimed zionist. A book about seeing both sides and empathy written by someone who has not once publicly condemned unnecessary and horrifying murdering of Palestinian children and other civillians. I am shocked to learn the author’s views on this subject. It’s like a pulmonologist being in an ad for cigarettes.
January 4, 2024
This is not a book that I would normally read. There is something about self-help books that I dislike, and I can’t quite put my finger on why. However, I decided to give this one a shot since I’m familiar with the author, David Brooks. He’s a columnist on the New York Times and a political commentator on PBS Newshour, both of which I enjoy following. He is an eloquent speaker and a reasonable Republican, a rarity nowadays.
His aim is to highlight the importance of knowing a person, on truly listening and understanding someone. He provides plenty of personal anecdotes (the chapter on his friend that committed suicide was touching). Other parts focus on being present and attentive with company and the value of asking the right questions during conversations, which help make a person feel seen.
The book resonated with me -- I’ve been feeling emotionally burnt out lately. I work for the Veterans Affairs, and I speak to veterans every day, helping them schedule their appointments with doctors, among other things. On occasion, I deal with angry patients, or answer the same questions repeatedly, which mutates me into an ornery ogre. It’s easy to forget that each person is an individual, someone dealing with a variety of issues. Perhaps they were diagnosed with cancer, or maybe they recently lost a loved one. Brook’s impressionable words made a mark on my mind, and I try to be conscience of it whenever I interact with others.
We currently live in intensely divisive times, and it is important to remember not to judge others without getting to know them. It is said that we have more in common with others than not, and that is something I try to keep in mind.
Perhaps Mr. Brooks advice isn’t unique, or novel, but they did open my eyes to my own downfalls. In the end, I think I’ll be a better person for it.
His aim is to highlight the importance of knowing a person, on truly listening and understanding someone. He provides plenty of personal anecdotes (the chapter on his friend that committed suicide was touching). Other parts focus on being present and attentive with company and the value of asking the right questions during conversations, which help make a person feel seen.
The book resonated with me -- I’ve been feeling emotionally burnt out lately. I work for the Veterans Affairs, and I speak to veterans every day, helping them schedule their appointments with doctors, among other things. On occasion, I deal with angry patients, or answer the same questions repeatedly, which mutates me into an ornery ogre. It’s easy to forget that each person is an individual, someone dealing with a variety of issues. Perhaps they were diagnosed with cancer, or maybe they recently lost a loved one. Brook’s impressionable words made a mark on my mind, and I try to be conscience of it whenever I interact with others.
We currently live in intensely divisive times, and it is important to remember not to judge others without getting to know them. It is said that we have more in common with others than not, and that is something I try to keep in mind.
Perhaps Mr. Brooks advice isn’t unique, or novel, but they did open my eyes to my own downfalls. In the end, I think I’ll be a better person for it.
February 29, 2024
A few weeks ago I went on yet another sub par first date. I was tired of reliving the same “first date conversations” and wondered how I’m ever going to really get to know someone past the same “where are you from? And What are your hobbies?” questions. so I decided to read this book😂 and it was AMAZING. It seems like society has lost the ability to see others deeply, and this book provides numerous ways to cultivate an environment to deepen relationships with people.
November 10, 2023
great concept and an overall deeply compassionate book but lordy david brooks i know you’re trying to appeal to the masses u are better than this oversimplified level of pop writing.
chapter start > personal, first-name basis anecdote > STAR interview method explanation of how anecdote affected author > tie in to chapter concept on LOOP is TIRED
chapter start > personal, first-name basis anecdote > STAR interview method explanation of how anecdote affected author > tie in to chapter concept on LOOP is TIRED
October 23, 2023
A lot of interesting advice in this very readable book. Appreciate the author’s soul-searching, and opening himself up to us so that we may learn more about ourselves, which leads us to learn more about others. Thank you to NetGalley for the ARC.
March 26, 2024
I wish I could get every American to encounter the empathy, curiosity, and humility that this book puts forth. It'd be a beautiful step towards healing our country. However, due to the practical constraints of acquiring and distributing 300+ million copies, I'll stick to the harder task of actually trying to internalize and live out this advice for myself.
November 29, 2023
dnf @ 43% - This book is boring! I thought it would be grounded in psychology, sociology, behavioral medicine or some kind of fact based science. Instead, it's just the author sharing his anecdotal "evidence" on how we can be nicer, kinder people.
March 19, 2024
Within the first pages I knew this was a book I should be reading. The book has 3 sections. The first section is a 5-star section. Brooks highlights that knowing and seeing another might be our high calling in life. He offers some basic tips for how to really know someone and explore their life and negative examples to avoid. He contrasts Illuminators and Diminishers in the following quote.
“Diminishers make people feel small and unseen. They see other people as things to be used, not as persons to be befriended. They stereotype and ignore. They are so involved with themselves that other people are just not on their radar screen.
Illuminators, on the other hand, have a persistent curiosity about other people. They have been trained or have trained themselves in the craft of understanding others. They know what to look for and how to ask the right questions at the right time. They shine the brightness of their care on people and make them feel bigger, deeper, respected, lit up.”
The second section engages over understanding another’s struggles and engaging with those who disagree with us. The third section highlights the importance of knowing someone’s strength—especially how their culture and experiences have uniquely shaped them. I found these sections helpful. They offer some sound advice and new perspective.
“Diminishers make people feel small and unseen. They see other people as things to be used, not as persons to be befriended. They stereotype and ignore. They are so involved with themselves that other people are just not on their radar screen.
Illuminators, on the other hand, have a persistent curiosity about other people. They have been trained or have trained themselves in the craft of understanding others. They know what to look for and how to ask the right questions at the right time. They shine the brightness of their care on people and make them feel bigger, deeper, respected, lit up.”
The second section engages over understanding another’s struggles and engaging with those who disagree with us. The third section highlights the importance of knowing someone’s strength—especially how their culture and experiences have uniquely shaped them. I found these sections helpful. They offer some sound advice and new perspective.
January 15, 2024
I’ve always enjoyed David Brooks’ balanced NYT and PBS commentary on politics and culture. True to form, he’s written an incisive work on how to deepen our relationships with other people, and connect in a more authentic way. I found myself taking notes while savoring each chapter. Sprinkled with anecdotes and written with Brooks’ trademark humility and elegant prose, How To Know a Person was one of my favorite books of 2023.
January 14, 2024
A refreshing "self-help" book about what it means to be human. Brooks argues that seeing others deeply and being deeply seen ourselves is the core of what it means to be a human. Rather than presenting himself as a master people person, Brooks is quite self-deprecating and comes across as a guide who is on a journey himself.
I really appreciated Brooks' focus on the power of questions. He argues that open-ended questions not only help others to better understand themselves, but the questions also act as a kind of magnet that brings people together. He also provides numerous sample questions to use in everyday life that I plan to use myself.
The final chapter on wisdom was probably my favorite of the book. Whereas wisdom is often thought of solely as the ability to make prudent decisions in difficult circumstances, Brooks makes the case that wisdom is actually relational. True wisdom is about helping others uncover hidden wounds, discover more about their true selves, and realize their full potential. This made me think more about how the Bible depicts wisdom in a relational sense as well, especially in the book of Proverbs.
This is a great book that has points of application for everyone, regardless of religious orientation or vocation, as it speaks to a longing deep within all of us to be deeply known in the context of relationships.
I really appreciated Brooks' focus on the power of questions. He argues that open-ended questions not only help others to better understand themselves, but the questions also act as a kind of magnet that brings people together. He also provides numerous sample questions to use in everyday life that I plan to use myself.
The final chapter on wisdom was probably my favorite of the book. Whereas wisdom is often thought of solely as the ability to make prudent decisions in difficult circumstances, Brooks makes the case that wisdom is actually relational. True wisdom is about helping others uncover hidden wounds, discover more about their true selves, and realize their full potential. This made me think more about how the Bible depicts wisdom in a relational sense as well, especially in the book of Proverbs.
This is a great book that has points of application for everyone, regardless of religious orientation or vocation, as it speaks to a longing deep within all of us to be deeply known in the context of relationships.
January 29, 2024
This book was an absolute slog to get through, and fails on almost every level that it sets out to achieve.
To quickly go over the positives of the book, it is well written. There are also moments throughout the book where the author begins to dive into a, slightly shallow, level of analysis regarding what it means to really know and connect with other people. That is, unfortunately the extent of positive things I have to say about this book.
This probably could have been about one quarter its actual length. Every single chapter is absolute packed with anecdotes from people the author has spoken to, or long paragraphs from ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BOOKS. There were multiple points throughout this where I questioned the purpose of this books existence, as opposed to simply reading the other books the author constantly quotes from people with much more relevant experience in the subject at hand.
Additionally, this book felt insanely pretentious. The author presents a constant need to randomly remind us of his connections to extremely famous or powerful people. Even during the points where he seems to be starting to present helpful analysis of the provided anecdotes, he often frames his points as "this is what I do" as opposed to "you might find it helpful to do this". This leads to a near constant feeling of being lectured to, rather than an actual look into the authors deeper thoughts on connecting with others.
To round all of that out, I rarely found the few things he did suggest to be helpful in any way. While some of the suggestions he makes or questions he recommends asking may lead to interesting conversations with other people, that doesn't actually constitute a deep genuine connection.
For me this book failed to do what it set out to in the title, it failed to show its author as someone remotely qualified to be talking about the topic, and it failed to even be an enjoyable read.
To quickly go over the positives of the book, it is well written. There are also moments throughout the book where the author begins to dive into a, slightly shallow, level of analysis regarding what it means to really know and connect with other people. That is, unfortunately the extent of positive things I have to say about this book.
This probably could have been about one quarter its actual length. Every single chapter is absolute packed with anecdotes from people the author has spoken to, or long paragraphs from ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BOOKS. There were multiple points throughout this where I questioned the purpose of this books existence, as opposed to simply reading the other books the author constantly quotes from people with much more relevant experience in the subject at hand.
Additionally, this book felt insanely pretentious. The author presents a constant need to randomly remind us of his connections to extremely famous or powerful people. Even during the points where he seems to be starting to present helpful analysis of the provided anecdotes, he often frames his points as "this is what I do" as opposed to "you might find it helpful to do this". This leads to a near constant feeling of being lectured to, rather than an actual look into the authors deeper thoughts on connecting with others.
To round all of that out, I rarely found the few things he did suggest to be helpful in any way. While some of the suggestions he makes or questions he recommends asking may lead to interesting conversations with other people, that doesn't actually constitute a deep genuine connection.
For me this book failed to do what it set out to in the title, it failed to show its author as someone remotely qualified to be talking about the topic, and it failed to even be an enjoyable read.
December 20, 2023
loved it. if you like Brooks' other books, you will feel right at home. More social research, weaving together different perspectives and stats to tell a particular story. I love his sources, love his writing style, love reading where he goes with things and love thinking through his conclusions to see if I agree. As a mental health professional, all of this felt right on target and I could say, shout it louder in the back.
As a non-professional in my non-paid hours, it seems clear Brooks doesn't live in the "real" world - and is safely cocooned in privilege of affluence, gender, race, and socioeconomic status- doesn't drive in traffic, deal with landscapers or contractors, or have to stand in line at the grocery store, etc, because his conclusion is that we should all be more warm, loving, and attuned to others. That most people just need a chance to "tell their story". For those of us that have to gulp down liters of BS from people on a regular basis, this is untenable. Try turning on the TV and tell me that you want to hear anyone on any channel talk MORE about themselves. Yes, read more Toni Morrison, Zora Neal Hurston, and definitely get yourself some high achieving Bobo artist/intellectual friends, but this is a very specific group that his thesis works on and for.
As a non-professional in my non-paid hours, it seems clear Brooks doesn't live in the "real" world - and is safely cocooned in privilege of affluence, gender, race, and socioeconomic status- doesn't drive in traffic, deal with landscapers or contractors, or have to stand in line at the grocery store, etc, because his conclusion is that we should all be more warm, loving, and attuned to others. That most people just need a chance to "tell their story". For those of us that have to gulp down liters of BS from people on a regular basis, this is untenable. Try turning on the TV and tell me that you want to hear anyone on any channel talk MORE about themselves. Yes, read more Toni Morrison, Zora Neal Hurston, and definitely get yourself some high achieving Bobo artist/intellectual friends, but this is a very specific group that his thesis works on and for.
February 18, 2024
An exceptional book
November 26, 2023
One of the best nonfiction books I’ve read in the last several years. I don’t agree with everything Brooks says (especially in chapter 8) but I found so much of value here.
The book focuses on how to develop friendship and connection with other people. I think there’s a lot of loneliness in the world right now and a lot of people who wish they had deeper more meaningful friendships and greater connection with other people. Brooks lays out how to do this in an interesting and compelling way, interspersing his conclusions with stories and observations. Highly recommend.
The book focuses on how to develop friendship and connection with other people. I think there’s a lot of loneliness in the world right now and a lot of people who wish they had deeper more meaningful friendships and greater connection with other people. Brooks lays out how to do this in an interesting and compelling way, interspersing his conclusions with stories and observations. Highly recommend.
Read
January 16, 2024There's a part of me - a kind of snobby, elitist part of me of which I'm not exactly proud - that doesn't want to like any book by David Brooks. He's the non-intellectual's intellectual; the non-conservative's conservative - bland, prosaic, with just enough of an aura of depth to beguile the viewers of Oprah Winfrey's Super Soul Sunday.
But damn it if I didn't like this book. What can I say. It's good, it's wise, and it's on an important topic that more people should probably devote a lot more attention to.
I might even go back and read parts of it again.
Ack.
But damn it if I didn't like this book. What can I say. It's good, it's wise, and it's on an important topic that more people should probably devote a lot more attention to.
I might even go back and read parts of it again.
Ack.
February 20, 2024
Empathy, compassion, simple human kindness — they all start with Seeing. The Art of Seeing is undervalued in our culture but necessary in our time of isolation and loneliness, which makes this book an essential. People want to be seen!
This book has three sections. I See You, I See You With Your Struggles, and I See You with Your Strengths. I’m partial to the first section. It inspires me to want to see people well — people as being made in God’s image and worthy of being seen and known.
What if you and I became a little more curious, generous, and affectionate? What if we became Illuminators who make people feel seen? Can we become loud listeners and kind talkers?
I want to see a Seeing revolution.
This book has three sections. I See You, I See You With Your Struggles, and I See You with Your Strengths. I’m partial to the first section. It inspires me to want to see people well — people as being made in God’s image and worthy of being seen and known.
What if you and I became a little more curious, generous, and affectionate? What if we became Illuminators who make people feel seen? Can we become loud listeners and kind talkers?
I want to see a Seeing revolution.
November 18, 2023
One of the best reads of the year hands down.
I had incredibly high expectations for this book. Several friends shared Brooks’s NYT article with me that he wrote to tease the book because it echoed a lot of conversations I had been having recently. I loved the article, but forgot there was a forthcoming book associated with it. Then I had a conversation with a guy at a party that was one of the better conversations I’ve ever had with a stranger. Towards the end, he suggested Brooks’s new book. Within a week, two more people I greatly respect suggested the book, despite the fact that it had only been released for about 3 weeks at that point. Quite the build up…
Ultimately, I’d say the book met expectations, which, as I mentioned, were incredibly high. It probably was not an A+ in my view, but a very solid A. At times it felt a little cliche, and at times Brooks pursued rabbit holes that I wasn’t particularly interested in, but more often than not, when I sat down with the book, I gleaned incredible insights and struggled to put it down.
As for the content, the title kind of says it all. For most of us, our ego gets in the way of our ability to genuinely know people, or at least to make them feel known. Brooks does his best to guide the reader through why this is and how to overcome it. He has a way of writing sentences that make you say, “that is exactly how I sometimes feel” or “that is exactly what this person I know is like”. He provides language for ideas you already had, which allows them to crystallize into beliefs and behaviors.
I say this often, but this is just the kind of book that I am dying for others to read so that I can discuss it with them. I don’t think you’ll regret it. Also, it makes a great Christmas present bc its pretty.
I had incredibly high expectations for this book. Several friends shared Brooks’s NYT article with me that he wrote to tease the book because it echoed a lot of conversations I had been having recently. I loved the article, but forgot there was a forthcoming book associated with it. Then I had a conversation with a guy at a party that was one of the better conversations I’ve ever had with a stranger. Towards the end, he suggested Brooks’s new book. Within a week, two more people I greatly respect suggested the book, despite the fact that it had only been released for about 3 weeks at that point. Quite the build up…
Ultimately, I’d say the book met expectations, which, as I mentioned, were incredibly high. It probably was not an A+ in my view, but a very solid A. At times it felt a little cliche, and at times Brooks pursued rabbit holes that I wasn’t particularly interested in, but more often than not, when I sat down with the book, I gleaned incredible insights and struggled to put it down.
As for the content, the title kind of says it all. For most of us, our ego gets in the way of our ability to genuinely know people, or at least to make them feel known. Brooks does his best to guide the reader through why this is and how to overcome it. He has a way of writing sentences that make you say, “that is exactly how I sometimes feel” or “that is exactly what this person I know is like”. He provides language for ideas you already had, which allows them to crystallize into beliefs and behaviors.
I say this often, but this is just the kind of book that I am dying for others to read so that I can discuss it with them. I don’t think you’ll regret it. Also, it makes a great Christmas present bc its pretty.
January 24, 2024
This book felt like reading a conglomeration of Brooks’ reviews of other books. There are some good concepts in here, and I now have many more books I want to read to delve into those concepts further, which I suspect will be better than this one on those topics.
One book Brooks references is You’re Not Listening by Kate Murphy which is way better than this book at helping you learn how to actually “see” (listen) to people.
One book Brooks references is You’re Not Listening by Kate Murphy which is way better than this book at helping you learn how to actually “see” (listen) to people.
February 3, 2024
This second time around was still very informative and a little more reflective. Some of the points that I had not previously paused for were thought-provoking so I stayed with them for a little longer.
David Brooks is a journalist so he is effective at pulling from literature and science to show how people have always longed to be seen and to see others. To me, this book is part memoir, part self-help, and part opinion. I enjoyed reading Brooks's perspective about and navigation of what it means to be present for other people. I also learned a few strategies that would be easy to practice. Seeing others deeply isn't easy, but Brooks illustrates that we don't have to start a non-profit or try to save the world. We can practice asking good questions and listening well.
I would recommend this book for anyone who is interested in a modern philosophical approach without being overly heady or stylistically complex.
David Brooks is a journalist so he is effective at pulling from literature and science to show how people have always longed to be seen and to see others. To me, this book is part memoir, part self-help, and part opinion. I enjoyed reading Brooks's perspective about and navigation of what it means to be present for other people. I also learned a few strategies that would be easy to practice. Seeing others deeply isn't easy, but Brooks illustrates that we don't have to start a non-profit or try to save the world. We can practice asking good questions and listening well.
I would recommend this book for anyone who is interested in a modern philosophical approach without being overly heady or stylistically complex.
December 22, 2023
I am so grateful for the calming way David Brooks writes to remind me that I'm here on earth to love others. In my busyness, I tend to gloss over people and what they are going through. I've felt this urge to want to have deeper relationships with others and this book has been a beautiful guide in how to do so. I still reflect on Brooks' "The Second Mountain" because I read it in my 40s when I was struggling with the very thing he writing. He has a way of cutting right through the surface of life to meet the core of my being.
January 13, 2024
Really loved this one and think I will start recommending it to anyone who wants to know more about interpersonal and/or family communication! It felt like a more enjoyable version of me nerding out over theories, waxing poetic about the beauty of human connection, or getting on my soapbox about the importance of self awareness 🤪 Brooks’s ability to synthesize large bodies of academic research in to digestible material for a large audience is very impressive.
January 2, 2024
Brings together a lot of concepts that have been on my mind (and in my books) recently: how much of who we are and how we act is fated, the utmost importance of pro social behavior, and that the best way to build community and trust is by letting people talk.
November 28, 2023
Should be high school required reading.
February 3, 2024
This was excellent
January 21, 2024
One of the best books I have read on humans!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,192 reviews