At one point you say "he oh so carefully lets it slip that...it would only explain 15% of mental health effects" and you link to this blog: https://www.afterbabel.com/p/why-some-researchers-think-im-wrong. i've looked through that blog post and I just can't find what you're referring to. It's not so much that I don't believe you, but rather I can't seem to figure it out.
I was sorta shocked to see him make the argument that it's better to believe alarmists like him, because the consequences if they're wrong are supposedly low, versus the consequences if they're right are supposedly high. As soon as you admit that kind of reasoning, you can rationalize all sorts of absurd trade-offs. A radioactive gorilla is going to break into your house and eat your family tonight, unless you pay me $50 to prevent it. Look: the consequences if I'm wrong are small: you're out $50 for nothing. But the consequences if I'm right are too horrible to contemplate!
Certain people are always helpful as red flags to let you know you don’t have to listen to what someone says—so that is Jonathan Haidt’s main use to me. If somebody falls for his schtick, I know they aren’t very smart
Did you even read the article? Lmao…he’s saying that being incredibly online is unhealthy…and maybe we should question WHY people are incredibly online…and maybe we shouldn’t embrace bad science and easily consumable narratives…because we are afraid to analyze the nuances of subjects…and maybe the people selling said totalizing narratives have other motives…and that just so happen to be symbolic of the systemic issues that the author alluded towards…
![[ world of weird things ]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_80,h_80,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F93728edf-9a13-4b2b-9a33-3ef171b5c8d8_600x600.png)
![[ world of weird things ]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_36,h_36,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F93728edf-9a13-4b2b-9a33-3ef171b5c8d8_600x600.png)
At one point you say "he oh so carefully lets it slip that...it would only explain 15% of mental health effects" and you link to this blog: https://www.afterbabel.com/p/why-some-researchers-think-im-wrong. i've looked through that blog post and I just can't find what you're referring to. It's not so much that I don't believe you, but rather I can't seem to figure it out.
I was sorta shocked to see him make the argument that it's better to believe alarmists like him, because the consequences if they're wrong are supposedly low, versus the consequences if they're right are supposedly high. As soon as you admit that kind of reasoning, you can rationalize all sorts of absurd trade-offs. A radioactive gorilla is going to break into your house and eat your family tonight, unless you pay me $50 to prevent it. Look: the consequences if I'm wrong are small: you're out $50 for nothing. But the consequences if I'm right are too horrible to contemplate!
Certain people are always helpful as red flags to let you know you don’t have to listen to what someone says—so that is Jonathan Haidt’s main use to me. If somebody falls for his schtick, I know they aren’t very smart
This reads like a very, very online guy being defensive that anyone could question how healthy it is to be very, very online
Did you even read the article? Lmao…he’s saying that being incredibly online is unhealthy…and maybe we should question WHY people are incredibly online…and maybe we shouldn’t embrace bad science and easily consumable narratives…because we are afraid to analyze the nuances of subjects…and maybe the people selling said totalizing narratives have other motives…and that just so happen to be symbolic of the systemic issues that the author alluded towards…
I know. Reading is hard Freddie.
Greg…you eat with this. Good essay.