In 'The Social Animal", David Brooks - author and columnist - takes unrelated studies and relates it to the different chapters of the book: e.g. Morality, Learning, etc. It is, at its most ironic, a categorically rational take on the emerging paradigm of emergence, networks and things working within the unconscious, told through the fictional story of two gen-XYZers growing up and falling in love.
This is a "post-google" book that could only have been possible with the malleability that google has given to information.
These studies vacillate between conclusions from psychological, cultural and physiological disciplines. Using this technique, David Brooks builds up each chapter topic as the subjective web that spins together these unrelated studies to a very pointed argument that evades conclusion. But maybe that is the point of his topic as well.
However, I am suspicious that some of these study-chapter topic relationships might be carefully crafted syllogistic fallacies. But that is also the draw of the book: think of it as a fictional story carefully crafted with data instead of characters. It is neither real, nor fake. It is a different form of fiction, halfway between authorship and observation.
Nonetheless the draw is undeniable and the book reads very convincingly. The use of fictional characters to propel the studies forces empathy within the reader, relaxing skepticism and making it a chewably enjoyable read.