Oh God

David Brooks has a blog and it's going to suck:

In my book, “The Social Animal,” I try to harvest and celebrate a lot of their work. But the knowledge just keeps on flowing. So I’m going to use this space to publicize, discuss and evaluate new work in the study of human nature. I hope to describe some odd or interesting piece of research or thinking. This blog won’t be about how to vote in the next election. It’ll be about who you are and why you do what you do.

I read the short version of from The New Yorker and PZ Meyers read the whole thing and characterizes it thusly:

So what is this book about? It's a bizarre chimera, an unholy grafting together of a novel, the story of Harold's and Erica's lives, and an ideological, psychological, neurological and pseudo-scientific collection of materialist explanations for their happy situation. Every chapter whipsaws the reader between a fictional narrative about some exemplary event in their history -- birth, education, being attractive and popular, careers, relationships, corporate revenues, morality, European vacations and other such universal concerns -- and a pedagogical and often facile digression into the supposed neural substrates that drive and reward decisions that will make these two happy and fulfilled. Neither part stands alone, and together ... I'm sure there were delusions of a soaring synergy that would drive deep insights, but instead it's a battle between two clashing fairy tales to see which one would bore us or infuriate us first.

Nothing good can come of Brooks' blog unless, of course, he is forced to quit making stuff up.