DNF at page 98. This is a book that feels as though it was written by someone detached and lacking awareness - the same kind of awareness that Brooks is advocating for. The haphazard approach to the subject combined with the author's style was enough to make me put the book down. Some of the writers cited by Brooks seem quite interesting and I would much rather read those. He provides no analysis, nor does he seem to present any new insight.

Like many other reviewers have mentioned, Brooks has a tendency to make broad, sweeping claims in his overly-formulaic approach to each chapter. A mix of personal narrative, anecdote, and psychology, this is a sprawling mess of a book that reads more like pop psychology than anything else. I found some points interesting for personal reflection, but overall, this book was a whirlwind. Early on in the book, Brooks even admits that his subtitle is somewhat of a misnomer. This inconsistency is the only consistent thing about the book.

Brooks also takes a capitalistic approach to conversation, or "seeing" others. Many of his examples thus far have related to the hiring process, notably putting the onus on the applicant to be skilled in these methods of communication in order to impress the potential employer (his example being the owner of The Atlantic magazine). Living in a large, heavily politicized city, this type of practice can easily lead to insincerity, exhaustion, and unattainable standards. You do not owe a potential employer your "high school" story (The Atlantic's owner reportedly believes that we retain our "high school fears") and this approach seems to defeat any purpose of community building, instead using good conversation as a means to a (financial) end.

What would have made this book much more powerful would have been the simple acknowledgement of the inequities that make communication like this so difficult. Folks from marginalized groups often have very valid reasons to distrust, withhold information, and retreat (especially in an age of high digital surveillance). The idea that the "political divide" can be bridged by two sides coming together is asinine. Many right-wing identified folks simply do not believe in the human rights of others - and these people are supposed to have a probing conversation with those with the power to oppress them and withhold their rights?

Additionally, Brooks uses Arthur Balfour (of the Balfour Declaration, which argued for the resettlement of European Jews to Palestine) as an example of an Illuminator - someone he perceives to be charismatic and good at conversation. It reminds me of how I was taught, as a history major, how charismatic orators so easily made harmful decisions that affected millions of people with no good intent. This black-and-white view of good conversation = morally good made me incredibly uncomfortable, and I found myself withdrawing from the book after that.

I'm curious to know whether he mentioned folks on the autistic spectrum, ASL, and other means of neurodivergent and disabled communication, but my intuition leads me to believe not.

TL;DR incoherent, rambling, assumes good intentions and neutrality without consideration for others.