Thank you, David Brooks, for this piece. I need a sort of framework on (workplace) virtues that embody my idea of strength of character. Thank God there's nothing here about picking up rubbish, following traffic rules and wearing the right shoes.
"We all know
what makes for good character in soldiers. We’ve seen the movies about heroes
who display courage, loyalty and coolness under fire. But what about somebody
who sits in front of a keyboard all day? Is it possible to display and
cultivate character if you are just an information age office jockey, alone
with a memo or your computer?
Of course it
is. Even if you are alone in your office, you are thinking. Thinking well under
a barrage of information may be a different sort of moral challenge than
fighting well under a hail of bullets, but it’s a character challenge
nonetheless.
In their 2007
book, “Intellectual Virtues,” Robert C. Roberts of Baylor University and W. Jay
Wood of Wheaton College list some of the cerebral virtues. We can all grade
ourselves on how good we are at each of them.
First, there is
love of learning. Some people are just more ardently curious than others,
either by cultivation or by nature.
Second, there
is courage. The obvious form of intellectual courage is the willingness to hold
unpopular views. But the subtler form is knowing how much risk to take in
jumping to conclusions. The reckless thinker takes a few pieces of information
and leaps to some faraway conspiracy theory. The perfectionist, on the other
hand, is unwilling to put anything out there except under ideal conditions for
fear that she could be wrong. Intellectual courage is self-regulation, Roberts
and Wood argue, knowing when to be daring and when to be cautious. The
philosopher Thomas Kuhn pointed out that scientists often simply ignore facts
that don’t fit with their existing paradigms, but an intellectually courageous person
is willing to look at things that are surprisingly hard to look at.
Third, there is
firmness. You don’t want to be a person who surrenders his beliefs at the
slightest whiff of opposition. On the other hand, you don’t want to hold
dogmatically to a belief against all evidence. The median point between
flaccidity and rigidity is the virtue of firmness. The firm believer can build
a steady worldview on solid timbers but still delight in new information. She
can gracefully adjust the strength of her conviction to the strength of the
evidence. Firmness is a quality of mental agility.
Fourth, there
is humility, which is not letting your own desire for status get in the way of
accuracy. The humble person fights against vanity and self-importance. He’s not
writing those sentences people write to make themselves seem smart; he’s not
thinking of himself much at all. The humble researcher doesn’t become arrogant
toward his subject, assuming he has mastered it. Such a person is open to
learning from anyone at any stage in life.
Fifth, there is
autonomy. You don’t want to be a person who slavishly adopts whatever opinion
your teacher or some author gives you. On the other hand, you don’t want to
reject all guidance from people who know what they are talking about. Autonomy
is the median of knowing when to bow to authority and when not to, when to
follow a role model and when not to, when to adhere to tradition and when not
to.
Finally, there
is generosity. This virtue starts with the willingness to share knowledge and
give others credit. But it also means hearing others as they would like to be
heard, looking for what each person has to teach and not looking to
triumphantly pounce upon their errors.
We all probably
excel at some of these virtues and are deficient in others. But I’m struck by
how much of the mainstream literature on decision-making treats the mind as
some disembodied organ that can be programed like a computer.
In fact, the
mind is embedded in human nature, and very often thinking well means pushing
against the grain of our nature — against vanity, against laziness, against the
desire for certainty, against the desire to avoid painful truths. Good thinking
isn’t just adopting the right technique. It’s a moral enterprise and requires
good character, the ability to go against our lesser impulses for the sake of
our higher ones.
Montaigne once
wrote that “We can be knowledgeable with other men’s knowledge, but we can’t be
wise with other men’s wisdom.” That’s because wisdom isn’t a body of
information. It’s the moral quality of knowing how to handle your own
limitations. Warren Buffett made a similar point in his own sphere, “Investing
is not a game where the guy with the 160 I.Q. beats the guy with the 130 I.Q. Once you have ordinary intelligence, what you need is the temperament to
control the urges that get other people into trouble.”
Character tests
are pervasive even in modern everyday life. It’s possible to be heroic if
you’re just sitting alone in your office. It just doesn’t make for a good
movie."