• protist@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is a rebuttal by the author of the book that was the target of that recent Nature article. He’s a professor at NYU who’s been studying this for a long time

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Haidt seems to be incredibly whiny for a seasoned academic dealing with critiques of his very popular work. Frankly, he needs thicker skin if he wants to publish at this level. All he needs to do is simply stand behind his research and he will be vindicated as it is duplicated/scrutinized if he’s correct. This “rebuttal” does him no favors and just reeks of an inability to assess his own claims or hear possible alternatives. He sounds like somebody who thinks they cured a disease, when reality is he has contributed to an ongoing dialogue about the impact of social media - which is important!

      He needs to accept that his likely isn’t the final word on the matter. He didn’t “solve” it.

      • doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Frankly, he needs thicker skin if he wants to publish at this level

        Au contraire. He’s not writing for a scientific audience, he’s writing for the NYT bestsellers audience. Thin skin somehow helps with the promotion of these books.

        • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Fair. To be clearer, if he wants to be taken seriously as an academic/authority he needs to develop thicker skin. Pop science book or not.

          If the critics are wrong, he’ll be vindicated over time.